City Council Agenda Packet 03-23-1987AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�- Monday, March 23, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Me, be re: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
I. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held March 9, 1987,
and the Special Meeting Held March 17, 1987.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Public Hearings
4. Public Hearing to Consider the Making of a Public Improvement
in Construction Five Subdivision and Along County Road 118.
Old Business
5. Consideration of Accepting Bide for the Construction of Public
Improvements in Construction Five Subdivision and Along County
Road 118.
6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Setting the Sale of Tax
Increment Finance Bonds for Improvements in Construction Five
Addition.
7. Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use for the Operation
of a Convenience Store and the Dispensing of Motor Fuels Incidental
to that Convenience Store. Applicant, Thomas Holthaus.
B. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Transfer
of the Cable Franchise from Rite Cable of Minnesota to Jonas
Intercable.
New Business
9. Consideration of a Request for a One Day Set-up/3.2 Beer License
for Ducks Unlimited and a one Day 3.2 Off -Sale Bear License for
July 5th Celebration - Applicant, Monticello Lions Club.
10. Consideration of Allowing the Granting of Gambling Licensee.
11. Consideration of Approving a Land Surveyors Certificate of Correction
for the River Terrace Plat.
12. Department Head Reports.
/ 13. Consideration of Bills for the Month of March.
\ 14. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 9, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Bill Fair,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 23,
1987.
4. A Public Hearingona Proposal to Amend the City Ordinance Granting
A Non -Exclusive Franchiee to Rite Cable of Minnesota to Allow a Transfer
to Jones Intercable.
Minnesota's Cable Statute requires that a city council hold a public
hearing to amend a franchise when it involves the transfer of ownership
of a cable company. Each city council of the ten cities Involved
In the Cable Commission will be holding their own public hearing
on the proposed amendment to allow for the transfer of ownership
of the cable franchise and also the Cable Commission itself will
be conducting a public hearing and make recommendations to each council
on the proposed sale.
Hearing no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
After receiving input from the Cable Commission public hearing, the
City Council will consider the adoption of an ordinance amendment
allowing for the transfer to take place.
5. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution of Final Approval for the
Issuance of Industrial Revenue Refunding Bonds for Monticello Medical
Facilities.
The Medical Facilities Company has completed all requirements for
issuance of Industrial Revenue Refunding Bonds that will lover their
interest cost on the original Industrial Rovenue Bonds approved by
the City a number of years ago. The refunding will save approximately
565,000 per year in interest cost to the Medical Facilities Company;
and the City's legal consultant, Holmes 6 Graven. Inc., recommended
the City approve the final resolution.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigan, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution of final approval for the issuance
of Industrial Revenue Refunding Bonds for Medical Facilities. See
Resolution 57-6.
CIE
Council Minutes - 3/9/87
^\ 6. Consideration of Entering an Agreement with MN/DOT for the City to
Accept Financial Responsibility for the Monthly Utility Bill for
Lighting the New Mississippi River Bridge.
in 1929, the City of Monticello entered into an agreement with MN/DOT
to pay for the necessary electricity costs to properly light the
sidewalk across the current Mississippi River Bridge. In the late
70's, the lighting and wiring system on the old bridge began to significantly
deteriorate and has not been usable since that time.
MN/DDT is currently developing plans for lighting the now four lane
bridge across the Mississippi River, and they have again requested
that the City of Monticello participate in paying the electrical
cost of lighting the new bridge. As proposed, there will be a total
of six high pressure sodium lights that would cost the City approximately
$385 per year to light if the City was responsible for the entire
cost. It was noted by Public Works Director, John Simola, that since
three of the lights would be in Sherburne County portion of the bridge,
the Sherburne County Engineer was asked whether Sherburne County
would be willing to pay for half of the lighting cost. Sherburne
County, at this time, did not indicate a willingness to share in
the lighting cost.
Council members questioned whether all state highway bridges located
in a municipality is the responsibility of the city to pay for the
lighting cost or whether the City of Monticello would be unique.
Public Works Director, John Simola, rioted that some cities do pay
for the lighting coot, but MN/DOT does pay for many others; and the
set policy has not been established. It was noted that previously
the City was responsible for lighting on the old Mississippi Bridge
primarily because the lighting was for the sidewalk pedestrian traffic,
and the light was not meant to primarily light the traffic lanes
like the new structure would.
An a result, a motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Bill Pair,
and unanimously carried to inform MN/DOT that the City was not agreeable
to paying for tho lighting cost, as they felt the lighting was primarily
for bridge traffic safety and not just pedestrian traffic like in
the past.
7. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearinp to Consider
the Making.Of Public Improvements in Construction Five Subdivision
and Alonq County Road 118.
As part of the development of the Middle School south of 1-94, the
development plans propose an extension of an 8 -inch water main along
County Road 118 to service the school site. Future plans for a now
water tower near the Monte Club Hill would involve the construction
of a larger water main along County Road 118 which would duplicate
the school district's proposed weter main extension. As a result,
the •ehool district indicated a willingness to share in the coat
of a larger water main to eliminate duplication of construction cost
-2.
Council Minutes - 3/9/87
and the City would consider adding this construction to the recently
approved public improvements in Construction Five Subdivision near
Lauring Lane. In order to add this segment to the proposed 1987
project, a public hearing was recommended to be held on the proposed
improvements to allow the City the ability to assess benefiting property
owners in the future for the water line extension.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution setting March 23 as the date for the
public hearing on the proposed improvements along County Road 118.
See Resolution 87-7.
8. Consideration of Entering an Agreement to Participate in a Fire Mutual
Aid Training Program.
The fire departments of the cities of Backer, Big Lake, Elk River,
Zimmerman, and Monticello have discussed the possibility of entering
a mutual joint powers agreement for the purpose of sharing training
aids for the respective fire departments, primarily for the use of
training VCR tapes. The Elk River Fire Department currently owns
eight video tapes pertaining to specific subjects on fire safety
and training that they are willing to make available to the five
member organization. The purchase of additional video tapes to complete
the first series of training tapes would total an additional 51,881.
The Elk River Fire Department received an $800 grant from Sherburne
County which would reduce the cost to $1,081 to be shared amongst
the five communities for 1987.
The preliminary draft of the joint powers agreement was reviewed
by the Council, but Questions were raised on the agreement and the
future cost to the Monticello Fire Department in upcoming years.
A representative of the Monticello Fire Department was not at the
meeting to answer Questions; and as a result, it was recommended
that the item be tabled until the next meeting to allow for more
information to be presented.
A motion had been made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bili Fair, to approve
entering into a joint powers agreement if the agreement would allow
for the City of Monticello to approve of the organization's budget
expenditures by October 1 of each year and provided that all five
cities join the association. Because more information was needed,
the motion was unanimously defeated.
9. Consideration of Ratifying the Proposed Date for the 1987 Board of
Review.
The Wright County Assassor's Office had tentatively set May 18 at
7:30 p.m. as the date for the annual Board of Review, which was accepted
by Council consensus.
-3-
Council Minutes - 3/9/87
10. Consideration of Authorizing the Purchase of Certain Public Works
Equipment.
Public Works Director, John Simola, presented a request to purchase
five items budgeted for in 1967. The items requested included a
magnetic locator for $615, a pressure washer for 52,714.84, an emergency
rescue boom hoist for S2, 523. 10, an air tamper for 5695, and the
installation of a lift station alarm system for 51,800, totaling
$8,347.94. It was noted that PSG, Inc., the contractor of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, would pay 5605.78 of the cost of the emergency rescue
boom hoist bringing the net cost to the City for all items requested
at 57,742.16.
After further discussion of each item, motion was made by Blonigen,
seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the purchases
as outlined above.
11. Consideration of Authorizing Repair of Manholes.
The city currently has four old brick manholes in the downtown area
sewer system that were in need of extensive repairs. The manholes
are located at the intersections of 1) Linn Street and Third Street,
2) Broadway and Linn Streets, 3) Broadway and Locust Streets,
4) Locust Street just south of Broadway.
The estimated cost of replacing the four manholes would be Ln the
neighborhood of 518,000; and as a result, the Public Works Director
has been investigating the alternate method of repairing the existing
manholes by casting an entirely now manhole inside the old manhole.
Water Products Company of Eden Prairie has successfully performed
this work at other communities and quoted a price of $4,920 for the
repair of the four manholes. It was recommended by the Publ is Works
Director that the City consider this alternative rather than replacing
the manholes with new structures at an estimated cost of $186000.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to authorize water Products Company to repair the manholes
at the quoted price of $4,920.
12. Consideration of Ordering the Preparation of a Development Design
for Downtown Monticello .,y Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban.
Over the past two or three years, a number of meetings and informational
sessions have been held with the City's Planner., Howard Dahl.gran
and Associates, along with the downtown retail community to discuss
the possibility of downtown rehabilitation along Broadway and adjacent
streets. Throughout the process, the downtown retailers have been
presented with a concept/sketch plan that was prepared by the City
Planner which indicated the various kinds of elements and design
features that could be drawn into a proposed rehabilitation plan.
-4-
L)
Council Minutes - 3/9/87
Recently, the downtown retailers had been asked to arrive at a consensus
among the members as to the types of improvements they would like
to see designed. As a result, the retailers presented three key
elements that they would like to see designed in a downtown rehabilitation
program including 1) upgrading of pedestrian walkways, 2) the lowering
of the street lighting, and 3) placement of plantings to soften the
concrete and asphalt rights-of-way. A majority of the property owners
in the downtown area signed a statement indicating they would like
to see the City proceed with the next step in a development design
incorporating these three features. The City Planner estimated the
cost of preparing a development design stage at between $10,000 to
$18,000. The development design plan would carry with it a certain
number of detailed options, but the basic layout would be finalized.
The actual final details would be left until final plans and specifications
were prepared.
Since the downtown rehabilitation study has been proposed for a number
of years, a motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair,
and unanimously carried to approve ordering the preparation of a
development design plan including a cost estimate of the proposed
improvements. After the plan is presented and the cost estimate
is reviewed, a determination would be made on how the project would
be financed or assessed to the benefiting property owners.
13. Consideration of an Offer or Offers to Acquire the Old Fire Hall.
Recently, the City Council ordered that the City initiate action
to market the old fire hall site at the corner of Cedar Street and
Third Street. This action resulted from an offer made by Dr. Clarence
McCarty to purchase the fire hall site for 565,000, which was rejected.
Since that time, Mr. Curt Markling has expressed an interest in acquiring
the property and presented a purchase agreement indicating a willingness
to purchase the property for $80,200 contingent upon the City approving
the buyers development plans for an on -sale liquor establishment.
Along with this purchase offer, Dr. Clarence McCarty also presented
a purchase agreement offering $80,100 for the site to be used for
a dental office.
Since the two offers received were primarily identical in price.
the Council then turned their discussion towards the proposed uses
of the site. Councilmember Bill Fair questioned the parking requirements
that a liquor establishment proposed by Mr. Markling might require
and the affect the parking would have on residential properties in
the neighborhood. It was noted that the liquor establishment would
require a greater number of parking spaces which are not available
on the site but could possibly be leased from the City's municipal
parking lot. It was noted that even a dental clinic would require
more parking spaces par City Ordinances than were available on the
site but would be much less than a liquor establishment. Mr. Markling
indicated that his present plana are to add a 900 sq ft addition
to the building in addition to the remodeling necessary for the liquor
establishment.
-5-
Council Minutes - 3/9/87
Discussion by the Council included the idea of requesting sealed
` bids for the property. In addition, some Council members were concerned
whether accepting an offer to sell the building would require the
City to, for example, approve the developer's pians and require the
issuance of a liquor license. It was noted by the City Administrator
that prior to the issuance of an on -sale liquor license, a public
hearing would have to be held and any development plan for the property
would have to go through the normal channelsv including a Planning
Commission review of the proposed development, etc.
1(
`\
After further discussion on the two proposais, motion was made by
Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, to accept the purchase agreement
offered by Curt Markling to purchase the property for $80,200 with
the contingency that Mr. Markling would have 60 days to receive the
necessary approvals for hie proposal. voting in favor was Fran Fair,
Bill Fair, Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Warren Smith.
Rick wolfstellea`
Assistant Administrator
-6-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO: CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 17, 1987 - 9:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Monticello City Council, upon proper call
and notice by the Mayor of the City, was duly held at 9:00 p.m.,
Tuesday. March 17, 1987, in the Monticello City Hall. Members present
were: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen.
Members absent: None. Also Present were: Administrator Eidem,
Assistant Administrator wolfsteller, and City Attorney Gary Pringle.
The Mayor convened the meeting and stated that the sole reason for
the special meeting was to consider a proposal to enter a joint agreement
with Monticello Township to resolve the matters on annexation currently
pending before the Minnesota Municipal Board. The Mayor explained
that he had had several meetings with the Chair of the Town Board,
Franklin Denn, and that City Attorney Pringle had met with the Township
attorney, William Radzwill, on several occasions to work out a proposed
settlement prior to the commencement of the hearings Wednesday morning,
March 18. Copies of the proposed joint agreement were given to all
members, and the Mayor asked City Attorney Pringle to review the
provisions of the document with the Council. Pringle explained that
the primary substance of the document generated an inner ring to
the OAA, abutting directly on the city's borders, which would be
known hereafter as a development area. Pringle noted that within
that development area, a property owner need only to petition, and
the land would be annexed without contest from the Town Board. He
noted that, however, in order to petition successfully, the proposer
must have a development plan, and further, another provision called
for the construction of public services to the area within a two
year period. Pringle noted that with the exception of a strip of
the interstate highway and the 80 acres recently acquired by the
School District, no other lands would be annexed at this time. Pringle
noted that he did request immediate annexation of the proposed voter
reservoir site and a corridor along County Road 118 to facilitate
construction of the water system, but there had boon no agreement
by the Town Board on those lands. with respect to the balance of
the original Orderly Annexation Area that was not now deemed part
of the development area, development could continue to occur; however,
any development would have to be in conformance with City development
standards and regulations.
The Mayor noted that the Town Board was meeting at the same hour
at the Town Hall to discuss the very same document with their attorney.
The Mayor and the City Attorney felt that the document was a substantial
improvement over current conditions and recommended its adoption
to the City Council. Discussion was then opened to members of the
Council. Councilmembor Bill Fair felt that the document was nonsubstantiva,
creating simply another arbitrary not of linos within a previous
not of arbitrary lines. He stated that he felt the petitioning process
Lm
C��
Special Council Minutes - 3/17/07
still left the City in a reactive instead of proactive posture.
Councilmember Bill Fair stated he felt it was an empty document that
gave the City no benefit. Attorney Pringle Countered by saying that
the benefit to the City was that the Township was agreeing not to
protest petitions for annexation in the future. Councilmember Fran
Fair inquired as to the possibility of the water improvement tt.at
has been planned by the City. Eidem noted that in the absence of
a petition to annex by the abutting property owners and without agreement
for immediate annexation of the water line corridor, the project
would be forced to go to referendum for funding. Eidem noted that
he was fairly comfortable assuming that the property owners in the
water reservoir corridor would not petition to enter the City and
consequently would be an obstacle to the development project. The
Mayor indicated that he saw no reason why the City couldn't simply
move the water tower if the property owners presented an obstacle.
It was stated that to relocate the water reservoir would cost the
taxpayers of the City approximately a quarter of a million dollars
more than the proposed siting. The Mayor indicated he didn't think
that the cost of the water system should interfere with the final
negotiation for this agreement.
Councilmember Blonigen indicated that, upon first reading, the document
seemed reasonably acceptable; but he understood that the area to
be known as the development area would be immediately annexed. Having
it now clarified that the development area would not be annexed,
but rather would enter by uncontested petition, he was now opposed
to the agreement. It was his opinion that the development of this
area was being controlled by people outside of the City rather than
by the planning divisions within the City.
Council discussion then centered on what might be a reasonable alternative
acceptable to the City which could be presented as a counter offer.
Couneilmomber Bill Fair still felt that a counter offer might be
Inappropriate since earlier action by the Council, namely, the petition
to the Municipal Board for the entire OAA, should be the course the
City pursues. It wan his opinion that the Council had committed
to an action and a willingness to live by the final decision of the
Municipal Board. No stated that everyone know there was a certain
risk at the time and that the original motion called for a specific
course of action. Other Council members felt that It was still reasonable
to pursue and develop a negotiable counter offer. At the conclusion
of discussion of a proposed counter offer, the Council elected not
to act on the proposed joint agreement that had been submitted by the
Mayor and City Attorney. (NOTE: A photocopy of the agreement as
submitted and the attached map aro attached hereto and made a part
of thaw minutes.)
Motion by Fran Fair, duly seconded by William Fair, to offer to Monticello
Township an agreement to be adopted jointly which would allow for
-Z-
C�)
Special Council Minutes - 3/17/87
the immediate annexation of the area shown do the attached map, would
dissolve the balance of the Ordar ly Annexation, but would create
in its place an urban fringe planning area to be regulated and administered
by a Joint Planning Board comprised of members from the Township
and the City; to make payment under a separate agreement between
the City and Town of the full 527,500 due in 1987 and then dissolve
said agreement; and lastly, the City Council will withdraw their
other petition currently pending before the Minnesota Municipal Board.
Voting in favor of the motion: Bill Fair, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Warren Smith, Arve Grimsmo. Voting in opposition: None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
NOTE: The map reflecting the motion by Fran Fair is attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
Thomas A.,Eideci
City Administrator
v
,/Montice! lo-ClMonticeIio
March 17, 1987
JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
CONTINUING THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA AND
DESIGNATING A 'DEVELOPMENT AREA'
WHEREAS; reoccurring boundary adjustments have occurred between
the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for the last
eignteen years and uncertainty as to future adjustments has been
continuous; and
WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board presently has before it a
petition to consider the annexation of the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area, and
WHEREAS; it has been difficult for the Town of Monticello and the
City of Monticello to plan separately for development and growth;
a nd
WHEREAS; it appears to be in the best interest of both parties
that joint cooperation and planning between the parties be
conducted; and
WHEREAS; the parties want to stabilize and enhance the
predictably of boundary adjustments; and
WHEREAS; there is a basis for agreement between the parties for
accomplishing these goals and the parties hereto do set forth the
terms of this agreement by the following resolution:
The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby
jointly agree to the following:
1. CONTINUING THE MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA
That the following Orderly Annexation Area in the Town
of Monticello was established by a Municipal Board order on
197 as in need of orderly annexation pursuant to
r+tnnesota statute chapter Cla, etal, and the parties hereto
reaffirm tais area for orderly annexation as shown in exhibit "A"
a ttached trerein, and made a part hereof consisting of
a p;roximately acres.
f 2. MUNICIPAL BOARD
1,
The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello do,
upon their adoption, and upon acceptance by the Minnesota
Municipal Board, confer jurisdiction upon the Minnesota Municipal
Board over the tracts described in this agreement, so as to
continue said orderly annexation in accordance with the terms of
this resolution. No consideration by.-the Minnesota Municipal
Board is necessary. The Board may review-and conment, but shall
within thirty (30) days, order said annexation of the property
%ii thin paragraph 8. No alteration of the described boundary of
the orderly Annexation Area is appropriate.
3. DEVELOPMENT AREA
The following area within the Orderly Annexation Area is
described herein as the "development area" as shown in exhibit
"B" attached hereto and made in part hereof consisting of
approximately acres. The said development area is an area
designated by the parties herein to be set aside for immediate
development. Said property shall be served with municipal water
and sanitary sewer .as soon as it is economically feasible and
ready for development. Annexation shall not occur unless
municipal water and sanitary sewer are to be provided within two
(2) years.
The City of Monticello will not be obligated to install
or require the developer to install municipal water and sanitary
sewer in the above designated "development area" unless said
development meets the standards and requirements of the City of
Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan,
comprehensive plan, utilities plan, and assessment procedures.
The area described as the "development area" abutts the
City of Monticello and is presently urban or suburban in nature
or is about to become urban or suburban. Further, the City of
Monticello is now or within a reasonable amount of time be
capable of providing municipai water and sanitary sewer to this
area.
The remaining area within the Orderly Annexation Area
outside the "development area" will be a low priority area for
developmental purposes.
4. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION.
Annexation shall occur upon the following terms and
conditions:
( A ) if the property owner within the aboved described
"development area" petitions the City Council and the Town Board
for annexation; and,
I
(B) the property owner subnits a development plan to
the City of Monticello showing the need for municipal water and
sanitary setter for at least 30: of the property petitioned for
annexation; and
( C ) the City of Monnticello accepts the Plan and
Annexation.
(D) said municipal water and sanitary setter shall be
provided within two (2) years.
If the property owners petition for annexation and the
City of Monticello approves, the Town of Monticello will not
object to the annexation.
5. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be ten (10) years from
the effective date of this Agreenent. The effective date shall
be upon the approval of the City Council of the City of
Monticello and the Town Board of the Town of Monticello and
acceptance by the Minnesota Municipal Board and said subsequent
order approving this Agreeenent.
6. LAND USE/ZONING AND PLANNING
The zoning and planning throughout the Orderly
Annexation Area as described above shall be under the control of
the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board until annexed to the
City of Monticello. if the property is annexed to the City of
Monticello, the property shalt be designated as according
to the City of Monticello zoning and planning or finances. Any
alteration or change to the zoning classification shall be
subject to a public hearing to be held by the City of Monticello
planning Conmission. The City of Monticello shall notify the
Town of Monticello of said land use classification hearing.
7. TAXES
Any and all of the property taxes collected in the
Orderly Annexation Area in 1961 shall remain the property of the
Town of Monticello. Any and all property taxes collected after
tnat said date from the property which is subsequently annexed
sha11 be the property of the City of Monticello.
8. IMMEDIATE ANNEXATION
The following described property within the Orderly
Annexation Area will be annexed to the City of Monticello on or
before i4ay 1, 1987.
A. 1-94 Corridor
B. School Property
C. City Water Tower and Corridor
9. ISOLATED TOWNSHIP PROPERTY
Any property within "development area" tnat becomes or
is about to become separated from the rest of the Orderly
Annexation Area or the Town will be annexed to the City
Monticello by joint resolution between the City of M.cr.lcello and
the Town of Monticello, if the city of Monticello so requests.
10. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA OUTSIDE
THE "DEVELOPMENT AREA"
No development shall occur within the Orderly Annexation
Area which is.outside the "development area" as above described,
unless said development meets both the standards of the zoning
and subdivision requirements of the Monticello Orderly Annexation
Board and the City of Monticello. Said development can only
occur if both standards are conplied with or are capable of being
complied with in the future. The intent of this paragraph is to
discourage development outside the "development area" which is in
the Orderly Annexation Area.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of
Monticello this day of
ivu7.
By
I is eiayor
ATTEST
LIty A = inistraCor
T0WN OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the Town
Board of the Town of
Monticello this day of
t`Jbi.
By
Its Lh81rman
ATTEST:
sown board Lierk
L Na L. -- - �eA7/Ie'.9'°• �� I LrQ�+-.y. /�ar,cw •Ia- /J . , .+
itr
�L � IJG ,rn IA••rrcr • N 1
ro ••e• • •CM/w •• 9r /1
'4t •$•' ♦i..•v•nwa a•.I,i��':' f�i^i �I yyg,:.` N �.
2277 , „W 1 /
„� (� � y•. Lde ..+..:p' krn4..ilr asr w + •. 4...d o
l•�f � iSY 7 Z ii`rNu, , i � rS)).�.�l:::ir /p lY/�u.1I � •. • � CLnI
A it
/ .Ar.•�v'J .Q, 1 . F 3l_n I' I v prr /A/ �!i •7 q+mJ 1 •oJ� ��`y'C1�%
IIC c•a - a'-A�-,.�1ri ---t' Rbr Gni
��, ..• e:+� Ira orP +.,e J •6.. __
• a �o IV .Ii - •hIV
vu✓�u_-r'
p /.r A�
Y _ _ • •aa �� r17 t' . r, •• w. 7*_ �rrn J� ...ra -V 173maa •:: p�0
• 1���jao.�a. Y
•, � S�/:!. -.( f Af, v.. 1 f W .Z, N.1 Fhn. ri•.4 Imo- L$ ,' -
Q(/GN
/TJn
„'t'4'g .-• .�a�/ I amu I `!. '�':(; Il ". iii cam/ w. I6C1
`f1:Y j �' .0 •I / -+- t` ,7Hi�./.i. i�,-'Jtm.* . I
' S
s , T ��' ,. o., Nd AMp .✓et Ij
•. / r/nr4.i hcqrer-., • rofLL .Y
� l/7 rco -- ' /Aqy,. ` /ars•.
) yy
•
Wei - rhos'- ! I
l • a 33a
C
0
OAA Line - Orange
A'—Ahci ;, s&A a
�-y
city -. Green
e Xb_0 • Co.
op 474
4�
Immediate Annexation - Blue
75 -
3�an
Development Area - Pink -
�e I
r ssf*
'
V
--
e
�
� -
JanJr ma�ol
7J 9J t •y el
Go/Y'GSfJond.n9
•e
i ae s,
, �.
JII �
•
�
.P
r • YeiC.Lt _
a
g
�
I�a�4
7S
F,P CAST
A
AAOI
MON
Jif
•
PART
`
I I05T L. I -
�.y
Y° h
u►" 25
�
.� ..• r. ,.
M
NT"'
U.
M I
VI '
�
1 .uIA•%r�
i
Jee lI pc ri./
:w„ T.V
dM 73
ai
L Na L. -- - �eA7/Ie'.9'°• �� I LrQ�+-.y. /�ar,cw •Ia- /J . , .+
itr
�L � IJG ,rn IA••rrcr • N 1
ro ••e• • •CM/w •• 9r /1
'4t •$•' ♦i..•v•nwa a•.I,i��':' f�i^i �I yyg,:.` N �.
2277 , „W 1 /
„� (� � y•. Lde ..+..:p' krn4..ilr asr w + •. 4...d o
l•�f � iSY 7 Z ii`rNu, , i � rS)).�.�l:::ir /p lY/�u.1I � •. • � CLnI
A it
/ .Ar.•�v'J .Q, 1 . F 3l_n I' I v prr /A/ �!i •7 q+mJ 1 •oJ� ��`y'C1�%
IIC c•a - a'-A�-,.�1ri ---t' Rbr Gni
��, ..• e:+� Ira orP +.,e J •6.. __
• a �o IV .Ii - •hIV
vu✓�u_-r'
p /.r A�
Y _ _ • •aa �� r17 t' . r, •• w. 7*_ �rrn J� ...ra -V 173maa •:: p�0
• 1���jao.�a. Y
•, � S�/:!. -.( f Af, v.. 1 f W .Z, N.1 Fhn. ri•.4 Imo- L$ ,' -
Q(/GN
/TJn
„'t'4'g .-• .�a�/ I amu I `!. '�':(; Il ". iii cam/ w. I6C1
`f1:Y j �' .0 •I / -+- t` ,7Hi�./.i. i�,-'Jtm.* . I
' S
s , T ��' ,. o., Nd AMp .✓et Ij
•. / r/nr4.i hcqrer-., • rofLL .Y
� l/7 rco -- ' /Aqy,. ` /ars•.
) yy
•
Wei - rhos'- ! I
OAA Line -,.Orange_ _
j
city - Green
Immediate Annexation - Blue I PROPOSED ' ANNEXATION
\I\ \ -CITY OF MONTI.CELLO'
\\\ WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA
= =--- PROPOSED ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
CORPORATE LIMITS
l \ SECTION LINE
REFERENCE FOR DESCRIPTION
II \ ^r
tt 1 I qtr _
.. ._--�----�--- _1. Fes'- .; =-- -•- �•--I 1 I I;
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
4. Public Hearing to Consider the Making of a Public Improvement in
Construction Five Subdivision and Along County Road 118. (T. E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
These projects have both been discussed at length at previous meetings.
The purpose of this public hearing is to comply with Minnesota Statute 429.
Concerning the improvements occurring in the Construction Five Subdivision,
the substantial amount of the project is going to be recovered through
tax increment generated from the now multiple housing structures.
The sewer, water, and street improvement benefiting the Malone and
Rand Mansion property will be assessed in part to the property owners.
We would still prefer to establish a contract for payment so that
we may accomplish a reasonable assessment roll for the two property
owners. I believe I noted in an earlier agenda supplement that I
have already had conversations with Mr. 6 Mrs. Malone concerning
a proposed contract settlement, and they verbally indicated agreement.
As yet, I have been unable to reach Mr. Busch, the new owner of the
Doran property. By conducting this hearing, if the contract solution
does not work out, the City is in compliance with the defined procedures
in Chapter 429.
With respect to the water line extension along County Road 118, the
School District has agreed to pay 50 percent of the project cost,
for they are 50 percent of the affected property owners. The remaining
50 percent is expected to be paid for by the City but is intended
to be assessed against the abutting property owner on the east side
of County Road 118 at a later date when the balance of the water
improvements are installed. Chocking with 11olmas 6 Graven, if we
wish to hold this assessment on the books to be respread at a later
date, it is necessary to conduct the hearing prior to the making
of the improvement. Consequently, we aro holding the hearing at
this time, even though we do not anticipate a direct assessment to
the property owners east of County Road 118.
This hearing is another one of those that simply needs to be opened
and closed. Because of the caraful timing and scheduling wo need
to facilitate the Construction Five improvements, the City should
not officially order the project until a later meeting. We will,
later in the meeting, review the construction bids (but not order
the improvement to be made or award a contract), and we will initiate
the process for a bond sale. Again, if for some reason the proposals
collapse, we can always abort tho project prior to making the bond
sale or authorizing the oxecution of contracts. These delays are
all intentionally built in so that the construction projects will
be carefully coordinated.
Being a public hearing, there really are no alternative actions.
The hearing should be opened, testimony accepted, and the hearing
closed. Other decisions will follow.
No staff rocommondation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
General skatchas of the proposed public improvomants in question -
Please rafor to agenda supplement from February 9, 1987, item 05.
-i•
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
C5. Consideration of Accepting Bide for the Construction of Public Improvements
in Construction Five Subdivision and Along County Road 118. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item is related to the public hearing held previously. On March 17
the bide were opened and returned to OSM'e offices for tabulation.
Again, this is a question of timing. You will not be expected to
give final approval to the bids and award a contract. The bids should
be held until April 27, 1987.
The only action for this particular meeting would be if the bids
come in so high that you wish to stop the project or the tax increment
part of the project becomes impossible. If the project is still
a go, then you ought simply acknowledge receipt of the bids and announce
your intent to continue. Publicly you probably should note that,
barring any unforeseen circumstances, you intend to award the contract
to the lowest responsible bidder at the April 27 meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the bids and publicly state your intention to continue
with the process with a final award to be at the April 27 mooting.
2. Stop the project due to unexpected expense.
\. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation will be prepared by John Simole after the final
bids are tabulated. John will prepare a small supplement to this
supplement for final meeting time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the bid tabulation.
C
-2-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
L SUPPLEMENT TO:
5. Consideration of Acceeting Bide for the Construction of Public Imt3rovemente
in Construction Five Subdivision and Along County Road 118. (J.S.)
On March 17, at 11:00 a.m., the City of Monticello received nine
bide for the above projects. For a major project with Construction
Five at Lauring and Washington Streets, the bide ranged from a low
of $255,234.60 from S 6 L Excavating to a high of $327,633.25 from
J.P. Nordaks. The engineer's estimate for the project was 5328,628.00,
so we're in excess of $73,000 under the projected construction costs.
We did find an error in a plan quantity for some storm sever pipe
that amounted to about 53,139, which would bring the estimated contract
cost to $258,373.60. The following is a breakdown of the budget
for the tax increment financing project itself.
Tax Increment Nov Budget
Sanitary Sever 6 Water
S 65,500
Street Construction
93,000
Storm Sever
100,100
Contingency 5%
13,000
Total Construction Cost
$271,600
Engineering 7.5%
20,400
Engineering Field Work 10%
27,200
Legal, Admin., Public Works 4%
10,900
Subtotal
5330,100
Issuance Cost S 12,900
Bond Discount 9,000
Capitalized Interest 33,000
$385,000
For the County Road 118 water improvement project, the bid with
S 6 L Excavating was $25,202. This bid In more than $5,000 loss
than the estimate, and the School District was pleased with the bid
results.
Orr-Scholen-Mayeron 6 Associates will be preparing a final bid tabulation
and verifying all of the figures. In addition, I have asked them
to carefully chock out S 6 L Excavating, as the only work they have
performed in this community that I am aware of is the demolition
of the Oakwood School. In addition, some of their prices ware extremely
low. They did leave approximately 518,000 on the table, as LeTour
Construction of Maple Lake was the second low bidder. John Badalich
will be reporting the outcome of that investigation at Monday evening's
meeting.
Should that investigation prove out, the staff recommendation would
be to accept the bide acknowledging 8 6 L Excavating as the low bidder,
and indicate the City's intention of awarding the project on or before
the April 27 meeting as soon as we are assured that the Construction
Five building project Is wall underway.
-3-
BID TABULATION FOR
C014STRUCTION 5/LAURING LANE
CITY PROJECT NO. 86-7
UTILITY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
BIDS OPENED: 11:00 A.M. ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
March 17, 1987 8 ASSOCIATES. INC.
CONTRACTOR BID SECURITY BASE BIO ALTERNATE BID
ANNANDALE SEWER 6 WATER, INC.
ARRON CONSTRUCTION
BAUERLY BROTHERS, INC.
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS. INC.
Y BURSCHVILLE CONSTRUCTION. INC.
CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION CO.
J. P. NOREX
i LA TOUR CONSTRUCTION
3 L E G RENBEIN. INC.
f MOLITOR EXCAVATING. INC.
G NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO.
? REDSTONE CONSTRUCTION
f RICE LAKE CONTRACTING CORP.
S. J. LOUIS CONSTRUCTION. INC.
/ S 6 L EXCAVATING
VALLEY PAVING. INC.
M
J
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT TABULATION OF IHE BIDS RECEIVED ON:
DATE
BY
Sp
290. 909 4- 24, 22,P :o 307 137'
✓ 2SS,.23y 4! — 2.5-202!-' ;da,vit.k
• IDEXOTES CORRECTED FIGURE
OSM COMM. No., 1941
6�)
zs
377 y33
+
..
2G 5,73 _
3jr%�+2G �
,273,'7g7 Jf
?'/Y2e"
Z9P,t,,r
✓
�
?0. 7V/
+
eu
.26, 030 '"
cC
.1a(., 77I
23, 98S °6
3i" /03 st
�t
2" S -e/
27 92s
Sid y«='
297 So—I "�
t
?5-19/
923, 793 d:
✓
29Y„3LG eS
r
%9 /62. ”.
y"'n,r`i
✓ 2SS,.23y 4! — 2.5-202!-' ;da,vit.k
• IDEXOTES CORRECTED FIGURE
OSM COMM. No., 1941
6�)
C
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Setting the Sale of Tax Increment
Finance Bonds for Improvements in Construction Five Addition. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Assuming we are to proceed, your first step for the financing process
is to set the sale. This resolution is precisely for that reason.
The original Tax Increment Plan provides for a budget of $530,000
bond sale. Based on confirmed bid amounts for the construction,
we anticipate the appropriate bond sale will be $400,000 (estimate).
On April 27, 1987, at the regular Council meeting, Springsted will
return with the final bond bids for the award of the sale. At that
same meeting is when you will award the construction contract. Again,
the timing being crucial on this project, this is a procedural initiation
matter.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Presuming that your action in the previous item was to continue,
the resolution ought to be adopted.
2. if, because of extraordinary bids, you cancelled the project
in the previous agenda item, then do not adopt the resolution.
There is no staff recommendation on this issue.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution for adoption.
-4-
it CKRTIPICATION OF MINUTES
Municipality: City of Monticello, Minnesota
Governing body: City Council
Meeting: A meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota held on the 23rd day of March, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at
the City Hall in the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
Members
present:
Members
absent:
Documents: A copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City
of Monticello at said meeting.
Certification:
1, Thomas A. Eidem, Clerk -Administrator of the City of Monticello do
hereby certify the following:
Attached hereto Is a true and correct copy of a resolution on file and of
record In the offices of the City of Monticello, which resolution was adopted by the
City Council, at the meeting referred to above. Said meeting was a regular
meeting of the City Council, was open to the public, and was held at the time and
place at which meetings of the City Council are regularly held. Member
moved the adoption of the attached resolution. The motion for
adoption of the attached resolution was seconded by Member . A
vote being taken on the motion, the following voted In favor of the resolution:
and the following voted against the resolutions
R
Q Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The attached
resolution is in full force and effect and no action has been taken by the City
Council of the City of Monticello which would In any way alter or amend the
attached resolution.
Witness my hand officially as the Clerk -Administrator of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, this _ day of March, 1987.
Clerk -Administrator
C
0
MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $530,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A
OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
It Is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Monticello (the
"Issuer") as follows:
1. Findings, Authorization.
1.1 It Is hereby found and determined that it is necessary and expedient
to the sound financial management of the Issuer for the Issuer to issue Its general
obligation tas increment bonds for the purpose of providing funds to pay public
redevelopment costs associated with the Issuer's Tax Increment Financing
Redevelopment District Number 5 (the "Project") undertaken by the Issuer pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78.
1.2 The Issuer is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.77 to (a)
Issue Its general obligation bonds for the purpose of providing funds to meet the
costs of the Project: and (b) to provide for the Issuance of such bonds In the manner
provided by, and subject to the limitations of, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475.
2. Sale of Bonds.
2.1 In order to provide funds to pay the public redevelopment costs of the
Project, the Issuer shall Issue Its General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series
1987A (the "Bonds") in the principal amount of $530,000. Any excess of the
purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $521,000 shall be credited to the debt
service fund for the Bonds to pay Interest first due on the Bonds.
2.2 The Bonds shall be Issued, sold aiid delivered in accordance with the
Official Terms of Bond Offering, attached hereto as Appendix A.
3. Award of Bonds, Advertisement, Meeting.
3.1 The Clerk -Administrator of the Issuer Is authorized and directed to
cause advertisement for sealed bids for the purchase of the Bonds to be published
In the manner required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and In any additional
publications as the Clerk -Administrator may determine to be suitable. Such
advertisement for sealed bids shall be In substantially the following form:
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE
$530,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A
CITY OF MONTICELLO, 81INNESOTA
Notice is hereby given that the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City")
will receive sealed bids on Monday, April 27, 1987. Bids will be received by the
City Administrator or his designee until 12:30 P.M., Central Time, at the offices of
Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota
55101-2143, at which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for
award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the
same day.
The Bonds will be dated June 1, 1987, will bear Interest payable on February
1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1988. The Bonds will be
Issued in Integral multiples of $5,000 of a single maturity, as requested by the
Purchaser, and will be fully registered as to principal and Interest.
The Bonds will mature February 1 In the amounts and years as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
1990
$20,000
1999
$30,000
1991
20,000
2000
30,000
1992
20,000
2001
30,000
1993
20,000
2002
35,000
1994
20,000
2003
35,000
1995
25,000
2004
40,000
1998
25,000
2005
40,000
1997
25,000
2008
45,000
1998
25,000
2007
45,000
Bonds due on or after February 1, 1997 will be subject to redemption. In
whole or In part of par plus accrued Interest, of the City's option on February 1,
1998, and on any interest payment date thereafter. If less then all of the Bonds are
redeemed, Bonds will be redeemed in reverse order of maturity and by lot within a
single maturity.
The City will furnish the approving legal opinion of Holmes A Graven,
Chartered, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. A copy of the legal opinion will be
reproduced on the printed Bonds. Copies of the detailed Official Terme of Offering
and additional information may be obtained from the City Administrator of the
City or from Springsted Incorporated.
Dated: March 23, 1987 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
0&
3.2. Sealed bids for the Bonds will be opened by the Clerk -Administrator
or his designee on Monday, April 27, 1987, at 12:30 P.M., Central Time, at the
offices of Springsted Incorporated, In Saint Paul, Minnesota. Consideration for
award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time of the
same day.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this 23rd day of
March, 1987.
Offered by:
Seconded by:
Roll Call:
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
9
EXHIBIT A
OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING
$530,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A
Sealed bids for the Bonds will be opened by the City Administrator or his designee on Monday,
April 27, 19870 of 12:30 P.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East
Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143. Consideration for award of the Bonds
will be by the City Council of 7:30 P.M., Centras Time, of the some day.
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated June 1, 1987, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on
February I and August I of each year, commencing February I, 1988. Interest will be computed upon
the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the
MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof
as requested by the Purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be
payable at the main corporate office of the Registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by
check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof of his address as it appears on
the books of the Registrar as of the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding the interest
payment.
The Bonds will mature February I in the amounts and years as follows.
$20,000 1990-1994 $30,000 1999-2001 $40,000 2004-2005
$25,000 1995-1998 $35,000 2002-2003 $45,000 2006-2007
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 1996, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay
Bonds due on or after February 1, 1997. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject
to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity
date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are coiled for
prepayment the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments
shall be at a price of par and accrued interest.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge tax
increment income frorn its Tax Increment Redevelopment Financing District Number 5. The
proceeds will be used to finance the public costs associated with the City's Tax Increment
Redevelopment District Number S.
TYPE OF BID
A sealed bid for not less than $521,000 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the
Bonds shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the opening of bids. Also prior to
the time set for bid opening, a certified or cashier's check in the amount of $5,300, payable to the
order of the City, shall have been filed with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED Incorporated, the City's
Financial Advisor. No bid will be considered for which said check has not been filed. The check of
he Purchaser will be retained by the City as liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to
comply with theaccepted bid. The City will deposit the check of the Purchoser, the amount of which
will be deducted at settlement. No bid shall be withdrawn after the time set for opening bids unless
0(.--1
the meeting of the City scheduled for consideration of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to
another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates offered by Bidders shall be in
7 '-itegral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1.0%. No rate for any maturity shall be more than 1.5% lower
tan any prior rate. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds
to the date of maturity.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded to the Bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by
the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to, the total
dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's
computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice,
will be controlling.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters
relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii)
reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein.
REGISTRAR
The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will
pay for the services of the Registrar.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but
neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will
constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP
Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the
Purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
Purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the Purchaser. Delivery will be subject to
receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes S Graven, Chartered of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers,
including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made
in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City, or its designee, not
later than 1:00 P.M., Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds
shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to
the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with said
terms for payment.
At settlement the Purchaser will be furnished with a certificate, signed by appropriate officers of the
City, to the effect that the Official Statement did not as of the dote of the Official Statement, and
does not as of the date of settlement, contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances
under which they were mode, not misleading.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the City's Financial Advisor
prior to the bid opening. The Purchaser will be provided with 20 copies of the Official Statement.
Dated March 23, 1987 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Thomas A. Eidem
Administrator
U
c
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
$S30,=
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS. SERIES 1987A
STUDY NO. 3232
Mareh 18. 1987
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
0
SWtINGSTED ':CLR; u�7)
March 18, 1987
Mr. Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor
Members, City Council
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem, Administrator
City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota $5362
REs Recommendations for the Issuance of $530,000 General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1987A
We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendot Ions for the
issuance of these bonds according to the terms and conditions set forth in the
attached proposed Official Terms of Offering. In March, 1985, a tax
increment financing plan for the Construction Five Development Proposal was
adopted by the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City.
That tax increment financing plan was amended and recently approved on
January 26, 1987. As the financing plan stands now, it is anticipated a total of
$530,000 of bonds will be required to pay for the public costs and Issuance
costs associated with the project. The developers of the project have already
constructed one apartment building containing IS units, and will be construct-
ing two new apartment facilities containing 24 units and 30 units. The
proceeds of the issue will be used to Install sanitary sewer, water, and street
construction and storm sewer improvements within the tax increment financ-
inq district. It Is anticipated increment income will be sufficient to pay
principal and interest on the obligations as they become due.
Attached as Exhibit I is the composition of the bond issue and is based on
estimated construction costs. The City will be taking construction bids in the
very near future and should those bids come in lower than those projected, the
amount of the Issue can be reduced accordingly.
Included in the principal amount of the Issue Is a provision for discount bidding
in the amount of $9,000. The discount, as you will recall, Is a means of
providing the underwriters with all or part of their profit and/or working
capital for purchasing the issue and permits them to bid coupon rates at or
close to the reoffering scale. The City has used this successful marketing tool
in the past, and based on current market conditions, we recommend its
continued use with this Issue.
We have also included capitalized interest in the amount of $40,000 in the
issue which, together with anticipated Increment income, will be sufficient to
pay Interest on the obligations through February I, 1989. It is anticipated
increment income will be available to meet the subsequent principal and
City of Monticello, Minnesota
March 18, 1987
Page 2
interest payments on these obligations commencing with the interest payment
due August I, 1989.
As noted earlier, the developers have completed one apartment building which
we understand is fully assessed and on the tax rolls. Attached as Exhibit II is a
projection of increment income for the Construction Five Proposal. You will
note, it is anticipated the 24 -unit facility and the 30 -unit facility will be
completed in 1987, and assessed at their full value as of January 2, 1988.
Therefore, it is anticipated full increment income will be received from the
tax increment financing district with taxes levied in 1988 for collection in
1989. The assessed values were calculated by the county assessor. To the
extent there is a delay in the construction or valuation process, the projected
increment will not occur to the levels projected.
Based on the projection of increment income, we have developed Schedule A,
which is the recommended maturity schedule for this bonding program. In this
schedule, columns I through 6 show the years and amounts of principal and
estimated interest due and payable on these bonds. Column 7 shows the
allocation of capitalized interest which, together with projected increment
income, should be sufficient to meet the interest payments on these obligo-
tions through February I, 1989. Column 8 shows the net debt service
requirement, which represents the difference between column 7 and column 6.
Column 9 shows the debt service requirement including a S% overlevy. This
overlevy is required by Minnesota Statutes, and Is a protection to the
bondholders and the City in the event 100% of anticipated revenues are not
received. Column 10 is the projection of incremental income as developed in
Exhibit Il. Column II shows the anticipated cumulative surplus that is
expected for this financing program.
We recommend the bonds be dated June I, 1987 and mature each February I
from 1990 through 2007. The first payment on these bonds will be an interest
payment due February I, 1988 in the estimoted amount of $21,025. This
payment will be made from a combination of the interest capitalized in the
issue together with the estimated $12,788 of increment income scheduled to
be received during 1987. The semi-annual interest payments due August I,
1988 and February I, 1989 will be payable from the some combination of
sources. After the February I, 1989 interest payment, It is anticipated
increment income will be sufficient to pay all principal and interest due on
these obligations.
We recommend the bonds maturing on or after February 1, 1997 be subject to
payment In advance of their stated maturity on February I, 1996 and any
interest payment date thereafter at a price of par and accrued interest. This
call feature represents $380,000 or 72`tb of the Issue, and with the inclusion of
the allowance for discount bidding, should not Impair the marketability of
these bonds.
We recommend you authorize SPRINGSTED Incorporated to obtain o rating of
this issue from Moody's Investors Service Inc. of New York. The City is
currently rated "A" by Moody's, and this issue should not jeopardize that
Q&
City of Monticello, Minnesota
March 18, 1987
Page 3
rating. Moody's will charge a fee of approximately $2,000 for their rating
services which will be billed directly to the City. The cost of the rating is
included in the estimated costs of issuance.
We recommend these bonds be offered for sale on Monday, April 27, with bids
opened by Mr. Eidem, or his designee, at the offices of SPRINGSTED
Incorporated at 12:30 P.M. The results of the sale will be tabulated and
presented to the City Council at 7:30 P.M. the some evening for your
consideration. A representative of SPRINGSTED Incorporated will attend that
meeting to provide recommendations as to the acceptability of bids received.
Respectfully submitted,
SPRING ED Incorporated
/dlr
C
0
C
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
$530.000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A
(The Construction Five Development Proposal)
COMPOSITION OF BOND ISSUE
Street Construction $120,200
Storm Sewer 163,000
Sanitary Sewer and Water 82,000
Total Improvements
$365,200
Contingencies
18,300
Engineering
28,800
Engineering Field Work
38,400
Legal, Administrative, Public Works
15,300
Issuance Costs
15,000
Allowance for Discount
9,000
Capitalized Interest
40,000
Total Costs $530,000
EXHIBIT 1
11
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
THE CONSTRUCTION FIVE PROPOSAL
PROJECTION OF INCREMENT INCOME
Originol Assessed Value 1-2-84
$ 13,960
For Taxes Levied in 1986
18 -Unit Facility - Completed in 1985
225,392
Total Assessed Value 1-2-86
$171,836
Less: Original Assessed Value
(13,960)
Captured Assessed Value
$157,876
Times Mill Rate
.081
1987 Increment Income
$ 12,788
For Taxes Levied in 1987
Some as 1986
1988 Increment Income $ 12,788
For Taxes Levied in 1988 and Thereafter
18 -Unit Facility Completed in 1985
Assessed Value 1-2-85
$171,836
24 -Unit Facility Completed in 1987
Assessed Value I-2-88
225,392
30 -Unit Facility Completed in 1987
Assessed Value 1-2-88
292,175
Total Assessed Value 1-2-88
$689,403
Lesss Original Assessed Value
(13,960)
Captured Assessed Value
$675,443
Times Mill Rate
•081
1989 Increment Income
$ $4,710
C
EXHIBIT 11
O
Interest rates are estimates: changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule.
the. actual Underwriter's discount bid may also vary.
a
City of
Mont cello,
Minnesota
Prepared March
15,-A87
$530,000
G.O. Tax
Increment
By
SPRINGSTED
Incorporated
Bonds, Series
1987A
Dated:
6- 1-1987
SCHEDULE A
Mature:
2- (-
Total Capital-
Net
Projected
Year of
Year of
Principal
ized
Debt
105%
Incremental
Cumulative
Levy
Mat.
Principal
Rates
Interest
8 Interest Interest
Service
of Total
Income
Surplus
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
1986
1988
0
0.00%
21,025
21,025
15,000
6,025
6,326
12,788
6,462
1987
1989
0
0.00%
31,538
31,538
25,000
6,538
6,865
12,788
12,385
1988
1990
20,000
4.50%
31,538
51,538
0
51,538
54,115
54,710
12,980
1989
1991
20,000
4.70%
30,638
50,638
0
50,638
53,170
$4,710
14,520
1990
1992
20,000
4.90%
29,698
49,698
0
49,698
52,183
54,710
17,047
1991
1993
20,000
5.15%
28,718
48,718
0
48,718
51,154
54,710
20,603
1992
1994
20,000
5.30%
27,688
47,688
0
47,688
50,072
54,710
25,241
1993
1995
25,000
5.40%
26,628
51,628
0
51,628
54,209
54,710
25,742
1994
1996
25,000
5.50%
25,278
50,278
0
50,278
52,792
54,710
27,660
1995
1997
25,000
5.75%
23,903
48,903
0
48,903
51,348
54,710
31,022
1996
1998
25,000
5.90%
22,465
47,465
0
47,465
49,838
54,710
35,894
1997
1999
30,000
6.00%
20,990
50,990
0
50,990
53,540
54,710
37,064
1998
2000
30,000
6.10%
19,190
49,190
0
49,190
51,650
54,710
40,124
1999
2001
30,000
6.20%
17,360
47,360
0
47,360
49,728
54,710
45,106
2000
2002
35,000
6.30%
15,500
50,500
0
50,500
53,025
54,710
46,791
2001
2003
35,000
6.40%
13,295
48,295
0
48,295
50,710
54,710
50,791
2002
2004
40,000
6.40%
11,055
51,055
0
51,055
53,608
54,710
51,893
2003
2005
40,000
6.50%
8,495
48,495
0
48,495
50,920
54,710
55,683
2004
2006
45,000
6.50%
5,895
50,895
0
50,895
53,440
54,710
56,953
2005
2007
45,000
6.60%
2,970
47,970
0
47,970
50,369
54,710
61,294
IOIALS:
530,000
413,867
943,867
40,000
903,867
949,062
1,010,356
Bond Years: 6,683.33
Annual
Interest:
413,867
Ave. Maturity:
12.61
Plus
Discount:
9,000
Ave. Annual Rate.:
6.193%
Net
Interest:
422,867
N.I.C.
Rate:
6.327%
Interest rates are estimates: changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule.
the. actual Underwriter's discount bid may also vary.
a
OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING
r
$530,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINTESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A
Sealed bids for the Bonds will be opened by the City Administrator or his designee on Monday,
April 27, 1987, at 12:30 P.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East
Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143. Consideration for award of the Bonds
will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day.
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated June I, 1987, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on
February I and August I of each year, commencing February I, 1988. Interest will be computed upon
the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the
MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof
as requested by the Purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be
payable at the main corporate office of the Registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by
check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at his address as it appears on
the books of the Registrar as of the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding the interest
payment.
The Bonds will mature February I in the amounts and years as follows:
$20,000 1990-1994 $30,000 1999-2001 $40,000 2004-2005
$25,000 1995-1998 $35,000 2002-2003 $45,000 2006-2007
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February I, 1996, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay
Bonds due on or after February I, 1997. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject
to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity
date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for
prepayment the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments
shall be at a price of par and accrued interest.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge tax
increment income from its Tax Increment Redevelopment Financing District Number S. The
proceeds will be used to finance the public costs associated with the City's Tax Increment
Redevelopment District Number S.
TYPE OF BID
A sealed bid for not less than $521,000 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the
Bonds shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the opening of bids. Also prior to
the time set for bid opening, a certified or cashiePs check in the amount of 55,300, payable to the
order of the City, shall hove been filed with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED Incorporated, the City's
Financial Advisor. No bid will be considered for which said check has not been filed. The check of
the Purchaser will be retained by the City as liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to
comply with the accepted bid. The City will deposit the check of the Purchaser, the amount of which
will be deducted at settlement. No bid shall be withdrawn after the time set for opening bids unless
C
the meeting of the City scheduled for consideration of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to
another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates offered by Bidders shall be in
Integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1.0%. No rate for any maturity shall be more than 1.5% lower
than any prior rate. Bonds of the some maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds
to the date of maturity.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded to the Bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by
the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to, the total
dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's
computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice,
will be controlling.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters
relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii)
reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein.
REGISTRAR
The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will
pay for the services of the Registrar.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but
neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will
constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP
Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the
Purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
Purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the Purchaser. Delivery will be subject to
receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes d Graven, Chartered of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers,
including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made
in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City, or its designee, not
later than 1:00 P.M., Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds
shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to
the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with said
terms for payment.
At settlement the Purchaser will be furnished with a certificate, signed by appropriate officers of the
City, to the effect that the Official Statement did not as of the date of the Official Statement, and
does not as of the date of settlement, contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the City's Financial Advisor
prior to the bid opening. The Purchaser will be provided with 20 copies of the Official Statement.
Dated March 23, 1987 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Thomas A. Eidem
Administrator
L�
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
7. Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use for the Operation of
a Convenience Store and the Dispensing of Motor Fuels Incidental
to that Convenience Store. Applicant, Thomas Holthaus. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the January 26, 1987, meeting you heard the initial presentation
on this conditional use proposal. At that meeting you were presented
with a petition calling for an environmental assessment worksheet.
The Council officially denied that petition stating that an Environmental
Assessment worksheet (EAW) would not be required. In a separate
motion you continued the public hearing on the conditional use until
March 23, 1987, to allow for the filing in District Court of an appeal
of the Council's decision. The City Council -a decision not to require
an EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on February 9, 1987. The
30 -day window where an appeal may be filed in District Court closed
on March 9, 1987. As of Monday, March 16, 1987, a telephone inquiry
with the Court Administrator in Buffalo indicated that no appeal
had been filed. That being the case, it is now time to address the
issuance of a conditional use permit.
I refer you to your agenda supplement of January 26, 1987, where
detailed information regarding the proposal was presented. Significant
information was presented regarding the determination that the conversion
from a liquor establishment to a convenience store would be lessening
the non -conformity. This is a complex and intricate matter which
I will be glad to explain in greater detail with the use of visual
aide at the meeting. I will not defend the quality of the proposal,
or explain the proposal on the developer's behalf, but I will offer
the interpretation of the City Ordinance.
With the onvlroumental question set aside, the question is now whether
or not to issue a conditional use for the dispensing of motor fuel
incidental to the operation of a convenience store. The operation
of the convenience store without motor fuels is permitted under the
terms of the ordinance because it is lees nonconforming under the
terms of the ordinance than the previous use. (lance, the motor fuel
disponsing is the only issue in question. The Planning Commission
established conditions that should be attached. Certain conditions
are established as a minimum in the text of the ordinance. These
conditions must be attached by ordinance. The additional conditions
from the Planning Commission can either be loft intact or removed
at Council discretion. They may also be altered by the Council,
plus additional conditions can be attached.
One important note. A conditional use is a permitted use provided
that the conditions are met. If the applicant agrees to abide by
any and all conditions (so long as they eco not whimsical prohibitive
conditions), than the Council may not deny the application.
-5-
c
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use as recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Approve the conditional use attaching additional conditions and/or
amending the conditions submitted by the Planning Commission.
3. Deny the conditional use on substantive grounds demonstrating
findings of fact which will show the project to be harmful to
the area.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not carry a specific recommendation beyond that of the
Planning Commission. It should be noted that the application is
in legal conformity with the ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the notice a a published in the EQB monitor; All other material
is included in your agenda supplement of January 26. 1987.
.6-
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
I Route No. 1 • Box 97-B
l Buffalo. Minnesota 55313
Jet. T. H. 25 and C. R. 138
Telephone (612) 682.3900
March 20, 1987
Gary Anderson, Building Official
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Land Use Change at Corner of CSAR 75
(Broadway) and Otter Creek Road
WAYNE A. FINOALSON. O,E.
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
Dear Gary:
We have reviewed the above referenced lend use change and offer the
following concerns and recommendations:
1. The land use change will result in a greater number of traffic
movements in and around the intersection of Otter Creek Road and CSAR
75 (Broadway St.)• This is a concern since we have received
complaints about congestion in this area especially during active
school times.
2. The most serious problem our Department has with this plan is the
proposed entrance/exit dust East of Otter Creek Road. This entrance,
in our opinion, to much too close (75 ft from entrance) to the
intersection of Otter Creek Road and CSAR 75. The proposed entrance,
from a traffic staudpulul., will increase the number of conflicts in
this area; will restrict eight distance for vehicles at Otter Creek
Road; and will cause greater driver indecision at this intersection.
These factors will reduce the capacity at this intersection which is
already limited due to its skew. Due to the above reasons our
Department cannot support an entrance at this location. Furthermore,
it would be in the bast interest of the public (from a traffic
standpoint) if the westerly entrance could be eliminated altogether.
3. The remaining entrance/exit locations are well placed and our
Deportment supports these entrance locations.
4. Turn lanae have become a standard practice for traffic generators on
high volume County Highways. The standard policy is to require turn
lanae for improvement projects that mast the following guidelines:
a. Main road carries more than 1,500 vehicles/day.
b. Improvement projnct/development will generate more than 40 trips
per day.
(7
Cary Anderson
March 20, 1981
Page 2
Since it is anticipated that this will generate more than 40 vehicles J
per day and that the AN is about 5,000, we will be requiring the
installation of: a right turn lane as part of this project (at no
expense to the County).
5. We have revieved-the drainage of this project and find it adequate.
This completes our comments and concerns regarding the above referenced
project. If you have any questions concerning this please contact myself
or Dave Montebello of my staff.
Sincerely,
� .Y` 6e"—
Wayne Fingalson
Count ighway Engi r
pc: John Simols, Monticello Public Works Director
WAF/jas
.,
PETITION
Project titles Otter Creek Convenience Store.
Dee�riytion. the construction of a convenience
store and a gas station.
8GIL• City of Monticello.
Alleged env i 122.21,01 effects: contamination of
water, threatened wildlife, groundwater quality.
EM NEED DECISION
I The RCD assigned by EQB to act on a petition for
/an EAR for the following project has made the
decision .1 the
• Otter Creek Convenience Store --no RAW
needed
FINAL EIS ADEODAC7 DECISIONS
The following EIB has been determined adequate by
either the R6D or the EpeM
• Elm Creek Planned Unit Development
EIB NEED DECISIONS
RCOs have determined that no 910 is required for
the following projects, based on RANs and
Comments received on the ... The date in
parentheses is the date on the Monitor notice of
the SAN.
• Edinburgh Shopping Center. Brooklyn Park
r ' IS -251
• Roberts Bird Sanctuary, Mple. 112-11
• Cleatwater River Bridge Replacement,
Clearwater (11-17)
PCB NOTICES
The MPCA proposes to issue 5 -year Certifications
of Exemption for PCB. The certificates will
allow continued use of PCB with various controls,
Inspections. and removal schedule e.
Dencriptiene PCB (Poi ychlor abated Di phenyll I.
used as flame resistant coolant and dielectric
fluid In power transformers and power capacitors.
These units art located in buildings, in outdoor
power substations, and on utility poles
throughout power distribution areas.
jlpylicanta•
Portes - Ploneer D1vialon, 3200 Como Avenue BE,
Minn aepol is, Minnesota 13 capacitors)
Armlicetion— may be viewed at the MPCA.
[omnent Period. 30 days, during which time
written comments or hearing requests may be
submitted to the RPCA for consideration.
Contact, Edna Bernstein, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, 320 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, RN
55155. Phone 612/296-7365.
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
� 8. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of
the Cable Franchise from Rite Cable of Minnesota to Jones Intercable. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last City Council meeting you conducted a public hearing on
the proposed transfer of the cable franchise from Rite Cable of Minnesota
to Jones Intercable. At the time of that hearing, the Sherburne/Wright
Counties Cable Communications Commission had not yet met to review
and analyze and discuss the proposed transfer. On Wednesday, March 11,
1987, the SWC4 met in regular session and conducted a public hearing
on the proposed transfer. Representatives of both Rite Cable and
Jones Intercable were present to explain and detail the transfer proposal.
Tom Creighton, the Commission's legal counsel, and Mr. Kevin Catoor,
the financial analyst for the proposed transfer, were also present.
During the course of the presentation, it became apparent that Jones
Intercable is seeking certain minor concessions in the franchise,
while the Cable Commission is also seeking certain concessions from
Jones. Final negotiations on those concessions and requeste are incomplete.
The Commission, rather than negotiate and haggle over the various
provisions of the franchise, adopted a resolution rocommendling the
approval of the transfer of the franchise "as is." That ie to say,
the franchise as it is currently adopted with all of the rights, privileges,
and obligations for both the cities and the company, shall remain
exactly as it is written. If there are negotiated and agreed upon
concessions at some later time, then amendments will be offered.
As of now, in order to expedito the transfer, all parties have agreed
to the transfer of the franchise exactly as it is written.
NOTE: Certain provisions of the franchise are no longer valid because
they have been preempted by federal legislation. We simply had federal
lav take certain provisions out of the franchise. Other then that,
the franchise is as it vas first adopted.
With the resolution adopted by the Commission recommending approval
by the ton individual city councils, the matter now tomos to the City
Council to approve the transfer of the franchise. Ono problom has
arisen since the Commission met. The attorney representing Jones
Intercable has requested two small language changes in the resolution
proposed for City Council adoption. They appear to be non substantive.
We, however, are not able to gain final approval from the Commission -a
attorney since he is out of town all of this week. My goal is to
speak directly with Mr. Creighton on Monday so an to have the language
matter cleared by Monday night. Assuming I can contact him and acquire
the information I need, a resolution may be presented for adoption.
If the Commissions attorney fools that the language is, indeed, nonsubstantive
and inserted solely for clarification, then we will recommend adoption
of the resolution. If, on the other hand, he feels the language misleads
the intent of the original resolution. I will ask that the Council
do one of two things, to wit: 11 Adopt the amended resolution, contingent
-7.
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
upon final approval from the Commission's legal counsel. In essence,
this resolution shall not take effect until clear opinion has been
granted by legal counsel. 2) Do not adopt the resolution. This would
simply bring the issue back to the Council at a later meeting when
the final language has been resolved.
Of course, there is a third option, and that is to adopt the original
resolution as it was originally written. The problem with this action
is that if, in fact, language changes are made, the amended resolution
will simply come back before the City Council on April 9 fox re -adoption
and rescinding of the earlier resolution. It's mainly a generator
of additional busy work.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Assuming that I make contact with legal counsel and gain approval
of the minor language changes, then:
1. Adopt the resolution allowing the transfer of the franchise from
Rite Cable of Minnesota to Jones Intercable.
2. Do not adopt the resolution - It is important to note that not
adopting the resolution will require in-depth rationale why Jones
Intercable cannot reasonably fulfill the obligations laid out
in the franchise. The Commission, based on its investigation,
finds that there is no reasonable evidence to withhold approval
from Jones Intorcable. Assuming that I cannot contact the Commission's
legal counsel or that he does not approve the language changes,
then; 1) Adopt the amended resolution contingent upon legal counsel
approval; 2) Do not adopt the resolution until further clarified.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
If the language changes are acceptable to legal counsel, staff recommends
that the resolution be adopted. The receiving firm, Jones Intercable,
seems to be a quality operator and the transfer, as proposed, will
not lessen any service that has been established in the area.
Based on the second assumption of not having the final language clarified,
staff recommends that no action be taken. while the contingent adoption
would certainly expedite the matter and keep future Council agendas
cleaner, theca is always the possibility that the language changes
could be accomplished but in a form different than as proposed. I
suggest we simply wait for final adoption if the resolution is not
In its final form.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the minutes of the Cable Communications Commission meeting
of March 11; Copy of the resolution originally proposed for adoption;
Copy of the resolution with the proposed amendments (amendments are
(� highlighted).
-8-
Minutes
SWC.
March 11, 1987
Page 1
4. Chairman Eidem recognized Tom Creighton of O'Connor 6 Hannan for the legal counsel
report. Creighton first explained the four documents presented to the Cotunission:
O'Connor b Hannan's legal analysis of both the purchase agreement and Jones'
response to the Commission Request for Information, the financial analysis of
Jones Intercable, Inc. prepared by Kevin Cattoor, a proposed resolution for the
Commission to pass recommending to the cities approval of the transfer, and a
proposed resolution (Exhibit A) for the cities to pass approving the transfer.
Creighton then noted chat although the process to approve the transfer was
accelerated in an attempt to meet Jones' preferred closing date, Minnesota Statute
and the SWC4franchise require the Cable Commission, on behalf of the cities, to
review the legal, technical, and financial qualifications of the Buyer. He
clarified that this was not to be in any way a comparison of Jones and Rite, but
was intended to separately analyze Jones in terms of their qualifications to operate
the SWC4 cable system. Creighton then further explained the guidelines used in
reviewing such qualifications: legal (corporate structure and supporting documents),
technical (examining the company's past experience operating cable systems), and
financial (including both the resources to purchase the system and subsequently
operate it successfully at the local level). Creighton then stated that the
Commission and cities should base their reco:amendation and approval on whether or
not there to any reason to deny the transfer on the basis of the legal, technical,
and financial qualifications of the Buyer, Jones Intercable, Inc.
In terms of legal qualifications, Creighton stated his conclusion that although
there is no reasonable basis on which to deny the transfer to Jones Intercable,
there is some question regarding the possibility of Jones eventually transferring
ownership of the system to a "controlled affiliate." Detailed information on any
such controlled affiliate has not yet been provided by Jones, and thus Creighton
recommended that the issue of approving the transfer to a controlled affiliate be
allowed to 'float' until more detailed information is provided in writing by Jones.
Aside from this issue, however. Creighton stated that the legal qualifications of
Jonas Intercable. Inc. as Buyer of the system ars satisfactory.
In terms of technical qualifications. Creighton again stated that there was no
reasonable grounds on which to deny the transfer. He reported that Jones Inter-
cable is an established, respected figure in the cable industry. and the fact
that Jones plans to leave the current people in management positions in the
Sherburne/Wright area indicates that the quality level of service currently
experienced in the area will remain.
At this point the Commission took a five minute recess.
5. Chairman Eidem recognized Kevin Cattoor, financial communications consultant,
for the financial analysis report. Cattoor explained that his primary concern
was to research the ability of the Buyer (Jones) to operate a cable system. He
reported that Jones proposed to purchase the Rite Cable systems of Minnesota and
n Naperville, Illinois for $24 million, plus 350,000 shares of common stock (this
then raises the purchase price to approximately 127.8 million). Cattoor based
his analysis on the assumption that Jones would acquire the system for itself
(ae opposed to a controlled affiliate/limited partnership), and divided his
analysis into two portions: evaluating the financial condition and performance
of Jones, and reviewing the financial aspects of Jones' response to the Commission 1
Request for Information. O,
Cattoor reported that Jones is the 12th -Largest multiple system operator in the
country, with signs indicating continued growth (through both increases in
subscriber base and acquisitions). He stated that although subscriber penetration
in the SWC4 area is currently at 27Z, Jones has indicated that it will reach 352
by Year 1, and an average of 47Z over a ten-year plan. Cattoor pointed out that
nationwide Jones has reached an average penetration of 632, and thus he believes
that their SWC4 projections are conservative.
In conclusion, Cattoor stated that based on his analysis. Jones Intercable, Inc.
has significant resources available to operate Rite's MN cable system, and feels
that Jones has provided a sufficient financial plan which meets the needs of the
SWC4 area.
Tom Creighton then stated that, based on Mr. Cattoor's financial report. the
Commission and Member Cities would not have any reasonable grounds on which to
deny the transfer to Jones Intercable, Inc.
Franchise modifications. Mr. Creighton explained to the Commission that the
Cities were dealing directly with a request to transfer the franchise intact to
Jones Intercable; but, as the entire franchise currently exists, he feels that
it needs updating and overhauling, as well as some negotiated modifications.
Jones wishes to receive approval of the transfer as soon as possible, however,
which will not allow sufficient time to negotiate all proposed franchise mod-
ifications, as well as update several provisions. Creighton then mentioned that
Jones' timetable may be slowed down somewhat by negotiations in the city of
Naperville, Illinois, which may lessen the need for expediting the SWC4 transfer.
With this in mind. Creighton stated that he feels it may be possible to negotiate
franchise modifications with Jones Intercable simultaneous to the cities consid-
ering resolutions to approve the transfer. Approval could then be made contingent
"upon agreement" of franchise modifications.
In addressing his concerns with the franchise modifications proposed by Jones
Intercable in their response to the Request for Information. Creighton stressed
four separate issues. First, he stated that he feels the question of a possible
transfer of ownership from Jones Intercable to one of its controlled affiliates
must be resolved. Second, he addressed the purchase of the third set of public
access equipment. The fact that, upon request by the Commission, this equipment
must be provided within 60 days has now been clarified with Jones Intercable. Third.
the obligations of Jones toward future interconnection issues is stated clearly in
the franchise, and he sees no problems developing in this area. Finally, Creighton
stated that the future activation of upstream channels, as well as the provision
to provide narrowcasting capability, should be of significant concern to city gov-
ernments and schools. Jones, however, will not downgrade the two-way interactive
system currently utilized by the schools, and the Commission's main concern should
focus on future activation.
In conclusion. Creighton recommended to the Commission that they pass the res-
olution which recommends to the cities approval of the transfer. He then pro-
ceeded to detail several provisions of the resolution which the cities are
recommended to pass (cities waive their right of purchase, consent to possible
grant of security interests. and certify that the SWC4 franchise is valid and in
full force and effect). Creighton pointed out that any mention of potential
franchise modifications is notably absent in the resolution. He also noted that
the resolution is subject to Jones closing the sale on or before June 30, 1987,
at which time it becomes null and void if the sale to not yet closed.
Oy,
7. Chairman Eidem then called for any questions -from the Co®fission to be addressed
to the legal and financial consultants. Commissioner King asked Mr. Cattoor if,
in his opinion, Jones Intercable could successfully operate the SWC4 system at
Rite's current 272 level of penetration. Mr. Cattoor stated that he believed
that they could not. When questioned by Chairman Eidem if the Commission should
merely rely on good faith that Jones will reach 472 penetration, Mr. Creighton
replied that there is generally an increase In subscribership when ownership of
a cable system is transferred. In addition, he indicated his belief that through
marketing strategies, realignment of tiers, etc., Jones may very well increase
their penetration in the area. Commissioner King next requested confirmation from
Mr. Creighton that if the cities were to transfer the franchise intact as it
currently exists, the cities "would not lose anything." Mr. Creighton stated that
this was correct. Commissioner Klaers then questioned Mr. Creighton if an early
approval of the transfer, prior to agreeing on franchise modifications, would hurt
the Commission's negotiating position. Mr. Creighton expressed his opinion that
since the cities had no reasonable 'grounds on which to deny the transfer to Jones,
holding the approval "hostage' would really do no one any good. He also stated
that the transfer modifications proposed by Jones are not drastic, and are in
fact merely an attempt to clarify their relationship with the cities. In his
opinion, Mr. Creighton stated that he believes franchise negotiations can take
place as easily following transfer approval as prior to it. At this time, there
were no further questions addressed to the consultants from the Commission.
8. Chairman Eidem then recognized Jim Daniels of Rite Cable Company. Mr. Daniels
first stated that Hite was anticipating approval of the transfer from the SWC4
cities, and proceeded to introduce several representatives of Jones Intercable
present at the meeting.
Chairman Eidem then recognized Pat Lombardi, Director of Jones Intercable, Inc.
Mr. Lombardi first gave the Commission background information on Jones Intercable,
and stated their commlttment to increase subscriber penetration in the SWC4 area.
He then addressed two issues of concern which had been raised throughout the
meeting, transfer of ownership to a controlled affiliate, and proposed franchise
modifications. Mr. Lombardi explained that in any limited partnership/controlled
affiliate in which Jones is the general partner, Jones remains ultimately re-
sponsible for the obligations of the partnership (Lombardi stated that this was
standard operating procedure for Jones, as they are the general partner of over
80,000 publicly -hold limited partnerships). Commissioner King then questioned
Mr. Creighton that if Jones transferred ownership of the SWC4 system to a controlled
affiliate, if the Commission would have to repeat the entire procedure leading
up to approval of a transfer. Mr. Creighton stated that it may be acceptable for
the Commission to approve the transfer to Jones Intercable, or a controlled affiliate,
contingent upon Jones supplying documentation satisfactory to legal counsel stating
that Jones is ultimately responsible for the controlled affiliate. Chairman Eidem
than stated that the Commission could continue discussion on this issue at a later
time in the meeting.
Mr. Lombardi next addressed the various franchise modifications proposed by Jones,
and stated that their intent was to receive approval of the transfer from the
cities through open discussion of these issues. Mr. Lombardi indicated that
Jones would consider transfer of the franchise as it currently exists. with open
discussion to be held on all proposed modifications. Specifically, Mr. Lombardi
mentioned Jones' concern with the cost and technical feasibility of providing
the capability for narrowcasting to each city.
At this point the Commission took a five-minute recess.
i ,�
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
10. Chairman Eidem declared the public hearing regarding cable television commun-
ications and transfer of the franchise open at 3:00 p.m. Allen Moen, representing
the Sherburne/Wright Educational Technical Cooperative (SWETC), expressed his
appreciation to the Commission for informing the school districts of developments
in transfer of the franchise from Rite to Jones. He stated that the two-way
interactive cable system has been a benefit to the schools, and that they look
forward to working with Jones Intercable as they have with Rite.
There being no further public statements, Chairman Eidem declared the public
hearing closed at 3:06 p.m.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
11. Consideration of Jones Intercable/Rice Cable transfer. Chairman Eidem opened the
discussion by stating that while he understood Jones' position on the provision of
narrowcasting, he was concerned that it remain in the franchise for the possibility
of future activation. Eidem made it clear that the record would show Jones' lack
of comfort with the provision, as they have briefly explained their position on the
cost and technology required. Mr. Lombardi then agreed that one cannot dictate
technology, and that if the technology to provide narrowcasting ever became
economically feasible, Jones Intercable would comply with the franchise provision.
At this point, Mr. Lombardi questioned the Commission and legal counsel if a
statement, drafted by Jones' MN counsel (Gary Matz of Herbst 6 Thus) that Jones
as general partner would be liable for the limited partnership, would be satis-
factory regarding resolution of the controlled affiliate issue. Mr. Creighton
responded on behalf of the Commission that he would have to examine the statement
in writing prior to giving any opinion.
Commissioner Josan then asked Mr. Creighton about the current status of the SWC4
franchise, in light of recent federal legislation. Mr. Creighton explained that
the franchise is not up-to-date, as some of it has been pre-empted by federal
law, and it is in need of overhaul. Commissioner Auger then addressed a question
to the Commission to clarify the Commission's negotiating procedures. Mr. Creighton
explained that the Chair is the Commission's negotiating leader, and is authorized
to instruct legal counsel and the Administrator of the preferred strategy. The
Chair may keep the Commission informed through instructions to the Administrator,
calling executive meetings, issuing mailings, reports, etc. The final step may
be to provide a formal statement to the entire Commission on the final procedure
to be followed. Commissioner King next questioned Mr. Lombardi if the SWC4 sale
was subject to the successful sale to Jones of Rite's system in Naperville. Ill.,
to which Mr. Lombardi replied that the SWC4 sale was conditional on the sale of
systems in Maryland and Illinois. He then stated that the Maryland system could
be waived as part of the "package deal" with Rite; however, the Illinois system
could not. Commissioner King then stated that he felt it should be on record
that the Commission doubts the ability of Jones to achieve a 502 level of pene-
tration in the SWC4 area, and that not complying with franchise provisions
(specifically, purchasing the third set of access equipment) could not be blamed
on not reaching this 502 figure. He also expressed his appreciation of Jones'
candor in dealing with the SWC4 throughout the transfer process.
��J
C
Chairman Eidem then questioned Mr. Lombardi regarding the transfer process in
Naperville, I11. Eidem said he understood that there were some complications in
negotiations, and inquired if Jones was merely reluctant to assume franchise ob-
ligations in which Rite was in default. Christine Meuers, counsel for Rite Cable
Co. of MN, stated that although she was in no way connected with Rite Cable Co.
of Ill., it was her understanding that the Naperville franchise includes several
provisions which are technically difficult for any cable company to meet. When
questioned by Chairman Eidem if the essence of the Naperville difficulty was
technological, Mr. Lombardi stated that most of it was. Chairman Eidem then
inquired if the difficulty was completely tied to instances of default on the
behalf of Rite Cable, and Mr. Lombardi replied that the four primary issues were
indeed tied to default. Commissioner King next asked Mr. Lombardi what would
happen if the sale does not go through in Illinois, and if Jones Intercable would
renegotiate with Rite Cable for the SHC4 area. Mr. Lombardi stated that he was
unable to answer that question at this time. Commissioner King then briefly
raised a question regarding some of the "boilerplate" answers provided by Jones
in their response to the Request for Information, and was informed by Mr. Creighton
that the information made reference to had been provided to the Commission. There
were no further questions.
Chairman Eidem then stated that the resolution before the Commission, a 'Resolution
Recommending the Approval of a Transfer of the Cable Communications Franchises
from Rite Cable Company of Minnesota. Ltd, to Jones Intercable, Inc.', was
complete with amendments as drafted by Tom Creighton during the course of the
meeting. Motion Klaers, second King to adopt the resolution as presented.
Motion King, second Leintz, friendly amendment, to include the amended wording
as drafted by Tom Creighton. Amendment failed. Motion Josan, second King,
friendly amendment, to delegate authority to legal counsel to determine to his
satisfaction the wording of the document. Amendment passed. There was no
discussion on the original motion. Motion to adopt the resolution as presented
to recommend approval of the transfer, amended to delegate authority to legal
counsel, passed unanimously.
C,�)
j RESOLUTION "
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ASSIGNMENT AND
TRANSFER OF A CABLE CO?LMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the City of has granted a cable
communications franchise (hereinafter "Franchise") to construct, operate
and maintain a cable communications system within the City to Rite Cable
Company of Minnesota, Ltd. (hereinafter "Rite"); and
WHEREAS, Jones Intercable, Inc., a Colorado corporation, has agreed to
purchase the assets of the cable communications system of Rite; and
WHEREAS, Jones Intercable, Inc. (hereinafter "Jones") has requested
the City to approve the assignment and transfer of the Franchise from Rite
to Jones;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City hereby accepts the recommendation of the Sherburne/Wright
County Cable Communications Commission II that the technical ability, financial
condition and legal qualifications of Jones as those qualifications apply to
the acquisition and operation of the cable communications system are acceptable.
2. The assignment and transfer of the Franchise to construct, operate and
maintain a cable communications system from Rite to Jones and/or one or more
of its controlled affiliates is approved and confirmed by the City effective
upon the date of the sale of Rite's cable communications system to Jones, and
subject to Jones supplying documentation satisfactory to Commission that Jones
as general partner will be obligated to perform all franchise obligations.
3. In the event that Jones and/or one or more of its controlled affiliates
desires to grant a security interest or interests in any or all of its rights,
duties and obligations under the Franchise and the cable communications system
to its lender or lenders as may be designated by Jones, the City hereby consents
to such grant of such security intereat(s).
6. The City hereby certifies that the Franchise is in full force and effect
and that Rite is not in default under any of the terms or provisions of the
Franchise.
5. The City hereby valves any right of first refusal to purchase the cable
communications system, but only as that right of first refusal applies to the
transaction now before the City.
6. The City approval set forth herein is subject to:
A. The closing of the sale of Rite's cable communications system
to Jones.
l
I
B. Jones and/or one or more of its controlled affiliates shall,
within thirty (30) days after the closing set forth above, accept
the Franchise in form and substance acceptable to the Sherburne/Wright
County Cable Communications Commission 11 (hereinafter "Commission"),
unless the time for acceptance is extended by the Commission.
C. Jones shall deliver to the Commission any performance bond and
letter of credit required under the Franchise.
D. Jones shall furnish to the Commission certificates of insurance
in accordance with the requirements of the Franchise.
1. In the event Jones fails to close on the sale of Rite's cable
communications system on or before June 30, 1987, this Resolution and any
or all approvals set forth herein shall be null and void unless said date
is further extended by the Commission.
Passed and approved this day of 1987.
CITY OF
By
Ito
By
Its
M
Mr. Tom Eidem
City Administrator
City of Monticello FEDERAL EXPRESS
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RE: Jones Intercable, Inc.
Our File No. 87-00226
Dear Mr. Eidem:
This firm serves as local legal counsel to Jones Intercable,
Inc. in the acquisition and transfer of the cable television
system from Rite Cable Company of Minnesota, Ltd. to Jones
Intercable, Inc. and/or one or more of its controlled affiliates.
It is my understanding that the City of Monticello will
consider a Resolutionapproving the assignment and transfer of
the Franchise at the City Council meeting scheduled for Monday,
March 27, 1987. We receivedn copy of the Resolution (Exhibit A)
to be adopted by the City on Friday, March 13, 1987, and reviewed
that Resolution with representatives of Jones Intercable, Inc.
Based upon this review, we have found it necessary to request two
(2) clarifications to that Resolution that has been provided to
you for the City to adopt. Consequently, I would like to briefly
explain the two (2) requested clarifications below.
First, we are requesting that the third WHEREAS clause be
revised as follows:
WHEREAS, Jones Intercable, Inc.,
(hereinafter "Jones") has requested the City
to approve the assignment and transfer of the
Franchise from Rite to Jones and/or one or
more of its controlled affiliates; (requested
language underlined)
We are requesting the phrase "and/or one or more of its
controlled affiliates" be added to the end of this WHEREAS clause
in order that the language be consistent first with the
HERHST & TH1;E. LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAN'
990 NORTHLAND PLAZA
0800 -PST 80!• STREET
ADRIAN E. 11 ERDST
LEoAL ASSISTANT -CATV
BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 75181
DANIEL 1) TeDE
AN, M. MAT. F.w.
GARY R. MATZ
TELEP110NE ((3IC) 1117:)-0711
Ton TooA.
—
REESE E. CHE.ZIe
TeLECOPIPR
DIANE M. SCRnIDT
(012) 60:)-0901
March 18, 1987
Mr. Tom Eidem
City Administrator
City of Monticello FEDERAL EXPRESS
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RE: Jones Intercable, Inc.
Our File No. 87-00226
Dear Mr. Eidem:
This firm serves as local legal counsel to Jones Intercable,
Inc. in the acquisition and transfer of the cable television
system from Rite Cable Company of Minnesota, Ltd. to Jones
Intercable, Inc. and/or one or more of its controlled affiliates.
It is my understanding that the City of Monticello will
consider a Resolutionapproving the assignment and transfer of
the Franchise at the City Council meeting scheduled for Monday,
March 27, 1987. We receivedn copy of the Resolution (Exhibit A)
to be adopted by the City on Friday, March 13, 1987, and reviewed
that Resolution with representatives of Jones Intercable, Inc.
Based upon this review, we have found it necessary to request two
(2) clarifications to that Resolution that has been provided to
you for the City to adopt. Consequently, I would like to briefly
explain the two (2) requested clarifications below.
First, we are requesting that the third WHEREAS clause be
revised as follows:
WHEREAS, Jones Intercable, Inc.,
(hereinafter "Jones") has requested the City
to approve the assignment and transfer of the
Franchise from Rite to Jones and/or one or
more of its controlled affiliates; (requested
language underlined)
We are requesting the phrase "and/or one or more of its
controlled affiliates" be added to the end of this WHEREAS clause
in order that the language be consistent first with the
i ERBST & TnuE. LTD.
Mr. Tom Eidem
March 18, 1987
Page 2
application that was submitted requesting the assignment and
transfer of the franchise. I have attached, for your
information, a copy of page 4 taken from the document entitled
COMMISSION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF RITE CABLE.COMPANY, LTD. AND TRANSFER
OF A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE. As you will note,
in the response to the Commission's request for information we
indicated the name of the applicant to be "Jones Intercable, Inc.
and/or one or more of its controlled affiliates". Consequently,
the addition of the requested language at the conclusion of the
WHEREAS clause would make the Resolution consistent with the
application that was submitted to the Commission and member
municipalities. Likewise, the addition of the phrase "and/or one
or more of its controlled affiliates" makes the WHEREAS clause
consistent with paragraphs 2 and 3.
The other clarification that we are requesting be made
appears at paragraph 2. We are requesting that this paragraph be
amended to read as follows:
2. The assignment and transfer of the
Franchise to construct, operate and maintain
a cable communications system from Rite to
Jones and/or one or more of its controlled
affiliates is approved and confirmed by the
City effective upon the date of the sale of
Rite's cable communications system to Jones,
and subject to Jones supplying documentation
satisfactory to the Commission that Jones As
e e e
3dtdw r!vi!F krg
moos tg g Sogtrolled gfgiliate, will be
obligated to perform all franchise
obligations. (requested language underlined)
The assignment and transfer of the Franchise will initially
be to Jones Intercable, Inc. It is likely that Jones Intercable,
Inc. will eventually make a subsequent transfer to a controlled
affiliate which is routinely done by the company. While it is
likely that Jones Intercable, Inc. will make a subsequent
assignment and transfer to a controlled affiliate, there is the
possibility that such an assignment and transfer will not be
made. Consequently, the additional language is being requested
to clarify that if and when an assignment and transfer is made to
a controlled affiliate, Jones Intercable, Inc. as general partner
of that controlled affiliate will be deemed to be obligated to
perform all franchise obligations.
I have enclosed together with this letter a revised
Resolution (Exhibit A) which illustrates the two clarifications
0
HERBST & Tt1IJE. LTD.
Mr. Tom Eiden
March 18, 1487
Page 3
that we are requesting. The enclosed Resolution is identical to
that Resolution submitted by the Commission with the exception of
the additional language described above. As you will note, I
have underlined the additional language as it appears in the
enclosed Resolution.
As of today, the cities of Dassel, Watertown, Delano and
Maple Lake have adopted the revised Resolution subject to
Commission approval of the requested language. The City of Elk
River adopted the revised Resolution subject to the Commission
Attorney indicating that he has no substantive objections to the
additional language. The City of Buffalo has adopted the revised
Resolution. The City of Big Lake has tabled the Resolution and
requested the Commission Attorney to indicate the objections, if
any, to the requested language.
I will be in attendance at the City Council meeting on
Monday, March 23 to answer any questions that you or the City
Council might have regarding Jones Intercable and to more fully
explain, as necessary, the requested modifications. I do want to
assure you that the requested clarifications are not intended, in
any way, to impair the rights and expectations of the cities or
the Commission.
Should you have any questions or if I can be of any
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
GRM:dl
Enclosure
cc: Tom Creighton
Barbara Hyndman
C4
Very truly yours,
GarIv.
Matt
L:/
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ASSIGNMENT AND
TRANSFER OF A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the City of has granted a cable
communications franchise (hereinatter "Francaise") to construct,
operate and maintain a cable communications system within the
City to Rite Cable Company of Minnesota, Ltd. (hereinafter
"Rite"); and
WHEREAS, Jones Intercable, Inc., a Colorado corporation, has
agreed to purchase the assets of the cable communications system
of Rite; and
WHEREAS, Jones Intercable, Inc., (hereinafter "Jones") has
requested the City to approve the assignment and transfer of the
Franchise from Rite to Jones and/or one or more of its controlled
affiliates;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City hereby accepts the recommendation of the
Sherburne/Wright County Cable Communications Commission II that
the technical ability, financial condition and legal
qualifications of Jones as those qualifications apply to the
acquisition and operation of the cable communications system are
acceptable.
2. The assignment and transfer of the Franchise to
construct, operate and maintain a cable communications system
from Rite to Jones and/or one or more of its controlled
affiliates is approved and confirmed by the City effective upon
the date of the sale of Rite's cable communications system to
Jones, and subject to Jones supplying documentation satisfactory
to Commission that Jones as general partner of the cont;olle4
aj= iate, it aDd when an assignment and transfer is made tq a
copero}led affiliate, will be obligated to perform all franchise
obligations.
3. In the event that Jones and/or one or more of its
controlled affiliates desires to grant a security interest or
interests in any or all of its rights, duties and obligations
under the Franchise and the cable communications system to its
lender or lenders as may be designated by Jones, the City hereby
consents to such grant of such security lnterest(s).
- 1 -
4. The City hereby certifies that the Franchise is in full
force and effect and that Rite is not in default under any of the
terms or provisions of the Franchise.
5. The City hereby waives any right of first refusal to
purchase the cable communications system but only as that right
of first refusal applies to the transaction now before the City.
6. The City approval set forth herein is subject to:
A. The closing of the sale of Rite's cable
communications system to Jones.
B. Jones and/or one or more of its controlled
affiliates shall, within thirty (30) days after the closing
set forth above, accept the Franchise in form and substance
acceptable to the Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable
Communications Commission II (hereinafter "Commission"),
unless the time for acceptance is extended by the
Commission.
C. Jones shall deliver to the Commission any
performance bond and letter of credit required under the
Franchise.
D. Jones shall furnish to the Commission certificates
of insurance in accordance with the requirements of the
Franchise.
7. In the event Jones fails to close on the sale of Rite's
cable communications system on or before June 30, 1987, this
Resolution and any or all approvals set forth herein shall be
null and void unless said date is further extended by the
Commission.
1987. Passed and approved this day of
CITY OF
By
Its
By
Its
2 -
L
I
IDE:tTIFiCATICN OF TRANSFERE-E
Name of Tran9feree -
.cones Intercable. Inc. ar.d/or o-- r-
of its controlled affiliates
Address of Transfie:ee
9697 East }Mineral Avenue
(Street)
Enalevood, CO 80112
(City, State, Zip Ccce)
Telephone
1/800.525-7002 or 303/792-3111
(Area Ccce/Num-e:)
Date
February 17. 1987
Please give name and telephone number of principal to vhcm
inquiries should be mace.
Name Mr. Patrick J. 'Lombardi
Telephone 1/e00-Szs•�oer aga,ng7- I)I
C-ce nd Numoer)
Authorized Signature WIAL-e-
0
f �
e and Title)
Patrick Lo ardi, Director
Date February 17, 1987
-a-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
9. Consideration of a Request for a One Day Set-Up/3.2 Beer License
"'lll for Ducks Unlimited Banquet and a One Day 3.2 Off -Sale Beer License
for July 5th Celebration - Applicants, Monticello Lions Club. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Lions Club is again sponsoring the Ducks Unlimited
Banquet scheduled for May 11, 1987, to be held at the Monticello
Roller Rink. As in the past years, the Lions Club requested a 3.2
Beer License and a Set-up License for the one day banquet. The license
fee for the two licenses would be 535.
In addition to the Ducks Unlimited Banquet, the Lions Club also requested
a 3.2 Beer License for the annual July 4th Celebration to be held
July 5, 1987. The license fee for this event would be 510. There
have been in the past no problems associated with the issuance of
either license. A Certificate of Insurance has been presented showing
the Lions Club has liquor liability coverage until October 1, 1987.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the issuance of the one day temporary 3.2 Beer and Set-up
License for May 11, and a one day 3.2 Beer License for the July 5th
celebration. The set-up license application would be submitted
to the Liquor Control Division for their approval prior to issuance.
L
2. Deny the request for the licensee.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff*e recommendation that both license requests be granted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Ma
11
Council Agenda - 3/23/67
10. Consideration of Allowing the Granting of Gambling Licenses. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
There are two applications for Charitable Gambling Licenses being
submitted to the State. AS always, the State will act on these applications
unless they hear a statement of opposition from the local governing
body. The City has 30 days from receipt of the copy of the application
in which to pass a resolution specifically disallowing the activity.
The applications submitted at this time are: 1) Wright County Chapter
of Ducks Unlimited wishes to conduct a raffle at the Monticello Roller
Rink. 2) The Monticello Jaycees would like to establish a pull
tab sales at the Comfort Inn. 3) Monticello Jaycees would like
to establish pull tab sales at the Silver Fox.
If there is no opposition to either of these, the Council should
take no action, and the time limit will simply pass.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Take no action, which will allow the applications to be reviewed
and granted by the State.
2. Specifically oppose all three - no real grounds to disapprove.
3. Specifically oppose a particular application - again, no real
grounds for opposition.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council take no action and the process
continue.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the gambling applications submitted to the State.
-10-
• x Minnesota Charitable Gwnb%VControl BOW LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPTION
Room N475 Griggs -Midway 8uldin9 MR eOMW use ONLY
1821 Unlvershy Avenue
St. Paul. MN 551043383
(612)642-0555
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Submit request for exemption at least 30 days prior to the occasion.
2. When completing form, do not complete shaded areas.
3. Give the gold copy to the City or County. Send the remaining copies to the Board. The copies will be
returned with an exemption number added to the form. When your activity is concluded; complete the
PLEASE TYPE financial information, sign and date the form, and return to the Board within 30 days.
�, Nine. � tc•�wA� �a1��rp Y..rONM tali.lm
f.}..:N7I it 164 if. �r L,Ve 1"A
yt7tts Ga1•aR SuU, Zbt:aM
/(7� /fol `!1� I :i.- y.. zip^,•,_ .. _. / ..,_
C3W E.iwu•i otxawlNvft {lui,r fawn" - Ntropw'anme IPnaatAarma
TV" NfMpm Stir" eptnw r)•tprNh Oe�iritM lCMakoni
D Fraternal O Veterans 0 IRS Designation
0 Religion Other Nonprofit Organization 0 Incorporated with Secretary of State
G Affiliate of Parent Nonprofit Organization
NairNW " Wwa• ANIMiv We Osla IpmUlN AaWhv
rii[+A 7--
MnYip AlO,ip I n 1 V �~i :. tl T td ` , !: r � . . . i •• t `/ ! •/
Games Yes No Dross Receipts Value of Prizes Expenses Profit
Bingo X
Raffles
reddiewhoel:
Tipboards �r
Pull-Tbbs
Uii N r+tifa
WN,aiuter Vern WhWn eanMha aevitnern A/0v4100 ( owbWaa's user" No.
I affirm all information submitted to the Board ua true, accu• I affirm aN financial Information aubmittsd to the Board Is
rate, and complete. trus, accurate, anti Complete.
Civet F.•Mivi Wtwa aw,in.i - - ars Cw1F~i.v Crrwasipuntri a•'• ,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
t hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this spOiicatiOn. By acknowledging receipt. I admit having been sarved with notice
that this appbcatlon will be reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Central Board and will become affective 30 days from the
dine of receipt (noted below) by the City or County, unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed which spscifi-
cagy disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution Is received by the Charitable Gambling Control Board within 30
days of this below noted data.
CITV ON COUNTY TOWNSHM
pr+wN Lw New -4 saw over CaMri "vM arum a.*I—wwwirrNntan" ave atlpi+aiimvi
a'T arww•Nft—
oats
I r ^1•^ i / J` t t: i t .��vt, ,�I d ji
C4 t1aea00t ,i^aM ft* r am as C&o"
3
01sm & z5o?is Electric, e)itc.
240 West Oakwood Drive - Box 686
Monticello, MN 55362
March 18th, 1987
Tom Eidem City Administrator
City of Monticello, MN.
Tom,
The Monticello Jaycees would like to get on the agenda at the City Council
meeting on Monday night, March 23rd.
we have signed agreements with both the Comfort Inn of Monticello b
the Silver Fox Inn of Monticello, for pull tab sales in their establishments,
pending the City Council approval.
I will have all State applications, lease agreements etc. with me on
Monday when I represent the Monticello Jaycees on: this request.
Thank you for your time.
In Jaycees,
Y�e iey J. 934an
Monticeflo Jaycees Gambling Chairman
1987 — 1988
EN
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
11. Consideration of Approving a Land Surveyors Certificate of Correction
�Y for the River Terrace Plat. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Greg Smith of Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes, has submitted the attached
Certificate of Correction to the River Terrace Plat. As I understand
it, the actual plat filed at the courthouse contains certain incorrect
data. This Certificate of Correction will allow the plat to be corrected
on paper while nothing, in fact, changes with respect to the actual
physical property. Paragraphs three and four of the Certificate
of Correction indicate the change to be made on the plat. Apparently,
the lots actually owned and controlled are not accurately described
on the original plat and need this correction.
We have never had one of these corrections before, but I checked
with the City Attorney who explained that it is a formality to allow
the correction on the plat on file at the County Recorder's office.
As described to me, this is apparently equivalent to a clerical correction
as opposed to a boundary adjustment.
C
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Pass a motion approving the Certificate of Correction.
2. Deny the Certificate of Correction - no real grounds.
3. Delay action - some reason for delay should be stated.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the motion be passed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Surveyors Certificate of Correction.
ellm
LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO PLAT
RIVER TERRACE
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 505.175 Laws of' Minnesota,
1957 Robert L. Rohlin, the undersigned a Registered Land Surveyor
in and for the State of Minnesota, declares as follows:
That the plat of RIVER TERRACE dated July 25, 1949 and filed on
September 7, 1949 in the office of County Recorder, Wright County.
Minnesota in Cabinet No. 1 No. 113, Document No. 176615, was
prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor who is not now available
for the following reasons: Deceased.
That said plat contains errors, otnnissions, or defects in the
following particulars, to -wit: Thd th line of the plat is
described as being 93.00 feet sout4�bf a dr*.lel with the north
line of Government 1 of Section #29 North, Range 25
West. L
That said plat is hereby corrected in the following particulars,
to -wit: The north line of the plat as laid out and monumented on
the ground is described as follows: Commencing at the northwest
corner of Government Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 121 North, Range
25 West; thence on an assumed bearing of East, along the north
line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 19.49 feet; thence N
2° 23' 30" W, a distance of 7.70 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence N 89° 16' 30" E to
the waters edge of the Mississippi River and terminating thereat.
Dated March 3, 1987 11 Z
eg steeed L nd Surveyor '
No. 7439
State of Minnesota
The above Certificate of Correction to the plat of RIVER TERRACE
was approved by the City Council of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota at a meeting held this day of , 19_
Mayor
This Certificate of Correction has been checked and approved this
day of , 19_
Wright County Surveyor
This Certificate of Correction to the plat of RIVER TERRACE was
filed in this office for record on the_day of
19 at o'clock _M., and was duly rcorded in Cabinet No.
1 No. ]13.
County Recorder, Wright County
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
v 12. DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORT - ADMINISTRATION. (T.E.)
It is my contention that since our last department head reports presented
last fall, I have either accomplished a great deal or accomplished
absolutely nothing. We have been exceptionally busy, and I believe
busier than any time since I have arrived in Monticello. Clearly,
annexation has monopolized a great deal of my time. It seems there
have been an extraordinary number of work sessions held in the last
couple of months preparing for this issue. The following report
also capsulizes significant other issues that have been coming through
administration added on to the ordinary every day work day.
Computer
The fall and winter months were spent largely in preparing for the
acquisition of our computer system. When We engaged Carroll, Franck
6 Associates to serve as our consultant, we committed a certain amount
of our time so as to not interfere with her time frame. Anne Carroll
kept us very closely on schedule. To stay on schedule as she projected
Involves a great deal of time spent In education and even site visite
to examine systema. Research and analysis played a major part of
the City's making its decision. While the work associated with the
search is over, a major effort is about to begin with the implementation.
We will need to spend substantial hours entering all of the data
to establish a data base. There will be considerable training involved
after installation is complete. While the truly difficult part of
the computer search is over, the time consuming aspect of implementation
is just about to begin. The positive note is that we will soon be
automated and hopefully will adapt to the procedures quickly enough
that we see immediate positive results.
Comparable Worth
For all practical purposes, the comparable worth evaluation is now
complete, and a plan has been outlined. The final report still is
to be drafted and submitted to the State of Minnesota. I know this
won't exactly thrill you, but having reviewed examples of other cities
reports, the and document may be in the area of 100 to 150 pagan
long. This report, and the pay equity plan that is implemented as
a result of it, will become a permanent part of our administration.
AS I noted in our various meetings on comparable worth, this in not
e one time event where we resolve pay differences; but it becomes
e permanent part of our operation so that pay equity will always
exist. It Is my hope to present the final report and plan to the
City Council for final adoption at one of the two April meetings.
Airport
The Joint Powers Commission on an area airport is now established.
Only Monticello and Big Lake are currently members, though the Joint
Powers Agroomont allows for lator additione to the Commission. At
the first official meeting of the airport, the bylawe and officere
-12-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
were set. A name for the airport/commission has not been selected.
Members of the Commission would like to select a name that avoids
the use of either of the cities. The purpose of the Joint Commission
at this time is to begin the feasibility work and investigate the
financial opportunities for funding an airport. we believe there
may be evidence that would support our becoming a regional airport,
which would allow us substantial state and federal funding. This
is the direction we are currently taking in order to proceed. Based
on our preliminary research about airport development, this could
be a three to five year process before an airport is in operation.
Downtown Rehabilitation
At your last meeting, you authorized the preparation of a development
design plan for downtown rehabilitation. In house, however, a great
deal of effort has gone into preparing for that very decision to
order designs. Every attempt is being made to incorporate the downtown
retailers into the process, but keeping the process separately enough
from committees to keep it progressing. In an effort to hold our
design cost to a minimum, staff will be dedicating a substantial
amount of time to assisting Dahlgren's office with base information.
The proposed time frame is still to complete the development design
stage by mid-June (that includes final acceptance of a design), make
a decision on whether or not to proceed and with how much to proceed
this year, order detailed plane and spec'e and go to construction
in the late summer, early fall. in an issue remotely related to
the downtown, the lawsuit filed by Keith Kjellberg against the City
concerning flooding at his building behind Golden Valley Furniture
(where Harry's Auto used to be) will soon be coming to court. Thin
suit was filed back in 1977. During the various conversations, the
prospect of the City acquiring the property outright for parking
expansion as part of the downtown rehabilitation was discussed.
While no serious negotiations have taken place, Mr. Kjollborg indicated
through his attorney, Brad Larson, that he would be willing to Boll
the property to the City for $85,000. At first blush, I find this
to be an unacceptable number, and consequently have not brought it
to the City Council until this time. In terms of overall downtown
planning and development, I do believe it would be beneficial to
have that building (and some others) permanently removed. I do not,
however, find that to be a reasonable price for that site. I would
appreciate hearing from all of you on whether or not we should pursue
this further or simply let it die right hare. The court case which
is being litigated by the attorney for the insurance company is scheduled
to occur in May.
Cable
Apparent from the loot two agendas is that a transfer of the cable
system in underway. Thin transfer has taken up a lot of time for
the Commission and for me as Chair of the Commission. Once the transfer
is concluded (a using that it fn), there will be new time spent
,eking the adjustment to the now company. we do not anticipate any
-13-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
Vmajor alterations in the operation of the system at this time, but
it will require some familiarizing in order to keep everything running
smoothly. Quite separate from the transfer of the company has been
the establishment of the public access studio in Monticello. Originally
planned to be situated in the Community Center in Elk River, Monticello
became a late entry in vying for the studio. The store room off
the Council Chambers has been modified, and the equipment has been
installed. The cable company, under the terms of their franchise,
is providing training sessions to promote qualified operators of
the equipment. The responsibility that goes along with the privilege
of having the public access studio is that City staff will now be
involved with some of the check in and check out policy and will
need to be trained in the proper inspection of the equipment. we
do not anticipate that to be time consuming, but it is one more task
that is going to be added to everyone'a job descriptions. Because
we provide the location for the Cable Administrator, we are assuming
that we will got some time assistance from her; out she is not employed
by the City of Monticello and cannot be expected to do the City of
Monticello's work. Part of our bid to be the public access site
was that some assistance would be available with City staff. with
respect to the City's own cable equipment, monies have been budgeted,
and a Spec shoot will be established in the near future so that we
can acquire our own equipment for government access programming.
With the purchase of our equipment, we will be the first city in
the area doing cable cast of governmental meetings.
Personnel
Approximately three years ago I submitted to you a personnel policy
which simply fell by the wayside for lack of interest. In light
of the Garcia vs. San Antonio decision, the entire personnel policy
has boon revised. I have been working in close association with
Frank Madden, the labor attorney from the Twin Cities who we use
to supplement the efforts of Mike O'Connor, in drafting a clear personnel
policy that can be applied uniformly across all departmental lines.
We are, perhaps. In our semi-final draft. Based on his most recent
comments, there aro two sections of the policy that still need to
be addressed so that the City is not exposed to any unfair labor
policies. Once in final form. I will resubmit to the Council for
detailed review, modification, and adoption. The personnel policy
that we are currently operating under is in the City Ordinance and
was drafted in 1979 when the ordinances wore rocodified. Labor lav
and practical considerations have made many Sections of that ordinance
obsolete. I believe it is imminently crucial that we address the
personnel policy issue within the next four months.
Logislaturo/Congress
It is difficult at this time to say anything sensible or intelligible
about the legislative session or the congressional session. The
�f assault on local government revenue sources is continuing at both
r levels. As you know, we have lost general revenue sharing. The
-14-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
fed's did, however, reinitiate the Federal Clean Water Act which
authorized the Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program.
While this was not of concern to us for our plant, the loss of those
funds to cities not yet upgraded would have a direct bearing on taxpayers
throughout Minnesota anticipating that the State would make up for
some of the lose in federal money. At the state level, the amount
of activity being generated over tax law, economic development, and
general economic programs is almost impossible to follow. The Governor
has proposed radical alteration to the local government aid formula
and tax levy authority involving schools and local governments.
There are numerous proponents and opponents and countless variations
of the program. The lobbying at the state legislature this year
is as intense by cities as I have ever seen it. Financial programs
seem to generate a great deal of interest. With respect to the Governor's
original proposal, which really has very little chance of passing,
the City of Monticello would be a clear winner. We are not among
the majority in that case. The Coalition of Outstate Cities is firmly
opposed to the Goiernor's proposal, which is the very reason we have
not renewed our membership in that organization. It seems ludicrous
that we would pay $1,500 assessment for lobbying purposes to lobby
against our own best interests. While there are no formal discussions
on gross earnings in any form, a great deal of discussion about local
government aid is circulating around equalizing tax base values.
While LGA is not a major revenue source for the City of Monticello, like
it is for some cities, it does reflect d percent of our total revenue
and should not be willingly donated to other cities at the legislature.
As near as I can toll from conversations with other government officials,
we may coo radical changes in property tax systems; but this year
will probably not produce any major changes to the local government
aid system. I agree that LGA will need to be addressed at some point,
but I do not believe the solution should be created at the expense
of communities that carry an extraordinary tax base.
Errata
Issues where I am spending my time now, and which will be coming
before the Council soon, aro as follows. A decision needs to be
made on the gazebo/bandatand for Ellison Park. In informal conversations
with most of you, I'm sensing that there is some agreement that the
notion of a major bandsholl could be postponed for now. Rather,
the City may wish to investigate the placement of a smaller, more
appealing structure that would servo tho function of Ellison Park
in a more attractive way. It is my contention that the State owes
us for the demolition of the existing structure in East Bridge Park,
but they ought not legislate what we choose to replace it with or
how we spend the money. It seams to me that the City should evaluate
placing an appealing structure in Ellison Park that could have a
multitude of uses but which would not preclude small music programa.
To build a structure that could accommodate a community concert band
1 think would be inappropriate in Ellison, but not inappropriate
within the community someplace. John and I will be trying to resolve
the payment issue with MN/DOT and in the meantime request that the
Council evaluate the various gazebo options to be placed in Elliman Park.
-15-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
I have enclosed in your envelope a photocopy of a letter of resignation
from the Preusse's Cleaning Service. In a phone conversation, Pat
Preusse indicated that the reason for resignation had to do with
work load increase involving other clients. while April 1 is their
resignation date, they have agreed to stay on temporarily until we
find a replacement. My plan is to lay out a job description for
the cleaning of City Hall and then advertise for bids. I am hoping
to submit final bids to the City Council at the first meeting in
April.
As I noted to you at the last Council meeting, the question of the
Zoning Administrator and the question of the goal setting work session
have both been put on hold. My plan is to have the detailed information
on both of those issues before the end of spring. Based on the way
the annexation procedure Is progressing, it might, in fact, be most
beneficial to have these issues come to the forefront in the spring.
How's that for a dandy excuse for not getting the work done earlier.
Lastly, as always, as time permits we are attempting to turn our
attention to some of the little items that tend to gat pushed aside.
Our conversion to the new filing system and adjustments in the basement
storage area are not yet complete. Converting the Council Chambers
to the workable cable studio is not yet complete, in fact, is barely
started. At the April 27, 1987, City Council meeting you can expect
a proposed ordinance prohibiting smoking in all of City Hall. There
( are only two City Hall employees who still use tobacco, and we have
made an agreement to quit in April. Even if we don't make it, we
agree that all of City Hall should ban smoking, including offices.
The ordinance will not designate a smoking permitted area in City
Hall.
A
-16-
::larch 1, 1987
.r. Torn Eldem
Cit;/ Administrator
Cit; o: 9onticpllc,
Monticello, CAN 55362
Dear Toro :
Thia letter is to serve as our notice to terminate clean-
ing services at Monticello City Hall. Our resignation shall
be effective April I, 1987.
Thank you.
I
Prousse'a Cleaning Service
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
\_ 12. DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORT - LIQUOR STORE AND FINANCE. (R.W.)
Enclosed with the agenda supplement you will find a copy of the year-
end
earend financial statements for the Liquor Store operations comparing
1986 and 1985. Mr. Joe Hartman will be in attendance at the meeting
to answer any questions you may have in regards to the financial
report and/or operations.
As you will note, total sales at the Liquor Store exceeded $1 million,
which is a first for this operation. The total operating income
from the store amounted to 592,993 versus $71,000 last year. Including
interest income from investments, etc., total net income from the
Liquor Store was $123,196.
Also enclosed with the agenda you will find a copy of the revenues
and expenditures compared to budget financial statements for the
year 1986. The statements enclosed summarize the revenues and expenditured
for the general fund along with the capital outlay fund, sewer and
water funds, tree and HRA funds, etc. We have recently completed
closing out the books for 1986, and the auditors will soon be starting
their audit and preparation of the annual financial report.
I have recently completed a summary financial report which is unaudited
and is currently in the process of being typed. If it in available
by Monday night, a copy will be provided.
-17-
4
CURRENT ASSETS
CASH IN BANK - CHECKING 6
CHA)(GE FU14D
CASH IN BANK - RESTRICTED
INVESTMENTS
INVESTMENTS - RESTRICTED
ACCOUNTS FECEIVAOLE
NSF CHECK - RECEIVABLE
INVENTORIES
PREPAID INSURANCE
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
LAND 6
BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS
PARK INO LOT
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
ACCUM. DEPR. - PARKINO L0' l
ACCUM DEPR-FURNITURE { FIXTUFE
ACCUM. DEP R. - BUILD
INGS
TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
TOTAL ASSETS
1
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
'
..............................................................................m...................
DECEMBER 31. 1986 AND 1986
ASSETS
31.913.66
6 19.617.8•
1.000.00
1.000.00
.00
119.80
160.719.60
325.165.73
.00
•6.380.05
00
175.1 1
0
72:016
.86
102.166.53
105.069.79
3.257.67
..............
5.071.69
6
602.059.36
-------------- -
6 50'.654.07
6.839.95
6 6.039.95
151.671.06
151.671.06
8.515.50
8.315.50
50.600.31
58.680.31
6.698.501
1 6.280.30)
66.712.60)
1 39.101.83)
61.690.50)
1 37.325.50)
--------------
6
132.605.60
--------------
--------------
6 362.718.95
6 736.666.76
..............
--------------
0 665.173.82
..............
1
1
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
DECEMBER 31. 1986 AND 1986
LIABILITIES AND
EOUITY
CURRENT LIABILITIES
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE •
60.61605
• 28.92911
PAYROLL Y/H - PICA
55..65
22..69
BOND INTEREST PAYABLE
.00
1.237.50
SALARIES PAYABLE
1.126.30
818.88
PAYROLL Y/H - PERA
60.62
13.37
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 1 VACATIONS
603.52
603.52
SALES 7 PAYABLE
9.069.00
---"---------
8.391.0•
---------- --
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
•
51.310.76
•
60.016.71
LONG-TERM LIABfL TIES
PONDS PAYABLE •
.00
• 65.000.00
TOTAL LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
--------------
•
.00
--------------
•
65.000.00
TOTAL LIABILITIES
•
51.310.76
•
85.016.71
EQUITY
RETAINED EARNINGS •
560.157.11
• 659.076.11
RF.VF.NUEI OVER ExPE.PITURES
123.196.09
100.281.00
TOTAL EQUITY
•
683.356.00
•
--------------
560.157.11
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EOUITY
______________
•
736.666.76
• 665.173.82
MONTICELlO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR )
REVENUE AND EXPENSES `
-• MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE i
FOR THE iYCLVC nONTH9 ENDED DECEMPER 31. 1986 AND 1986 ,
.............................................................e....e.................................................................
CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD YEAR-TO-DATE Y -T -D SAME -PD -LST -YR PD-LYR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTD -LY
AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO
SALES
LIQUOR 0 86.910,89 12.34 1 2E17.018.)1 2H.34 0 64.919.30 3]•02 • 283.2]2.18 29.15
BEER 128.458.04 47.79 544.262.48 53.7• 117.938.98 45.05 513.059.34 52.81
I WINE 45.146.30 1
A. 00 144.661.10 14.20 45.49).21 17.69 115.482.10 13.95
OTHER MDSE 6.901.76 2.57 27.141.84 2.68 6.669.46 2.59 26r238.47 2.70
MISE. NON-TAXABLE SALES 2.703.11 1.04 14.891.86 1.47 3.173.33 1.23 13.342.95 1.58
• DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS ( 695.61) 1 .261 1 ].282.801 f .121 1 6]1.411 ( .251 1 1.44].25) 1 .151
BOTTLE DEPOSIT - MISC ( 13.101 t .001 239.44 .02 9.22 .00 156.96 .02
DISCOUNTS 1 )13.83) 1 .27) ( 2.101.09) l .21) 1 369.84) < .14) 1 373.46) ( .061
_____________ ______ _____________ ______ _____________ ______ ------------- _____-
a0 TOTAL SALES • 268.786.48 100.01 • 1.012.830.74 100.00 • 257.206.27 99.99 • 971.495.29 100.00
! COSI OF GOODS SOLD 6( 207.519.011 < 77.2U•< 792.48A.22) 1 70.24) 6( 191.115.06) 1 74.10)•1 765.636.35) c 78.81)
p GROSS PROFIT 0 61.246.67 .2.80 6 22:0.344.52 21.76 • 66.091.21 25.69 0
205.030.04 21.19
GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES
1 PERSONAL SCRVICEO
SAL ARIC REGULAR • 15.769.50 5.87 • 60.363.08 5.06 • 11.445.89 5.62 • 63.149.20 6.50
PERA 672.30 .25 2.065.34 .20 403.16 .10 2.0]].79 .21
INSURANCE. MEDICAL AND LIFE 965.0. .36 ].679.96 .36 979.63 .36 3.079.44 .40
SDCIAL SECURITY ---___-064.16 -_-_36 -----3.462.00 .]4 -----_-043.9v -_-_3] ---_-3_512.58 ----36
TOIAL PERSONAL SERVICES • 18.371.86 6.84 • 60.570.30 6.8; • 16.752.67 6.52 • 72.575.01 7.47
SUPPLIES
r
OFF ICC SUPPLIES • 00.25 .02 • 796.43 .00 • .02.65 .I1 • 523.06 .OS
4 GENERAL OPERAT INS SUPPLIES 1.003.66 .31 3.106.40 .50 1.443.76 .S6 3.717.85 .38
MAINT CHANCE OF BLDO. SUPPLIES .00 .00 1].09 .00 2.67 •01 27.84 .00
SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR COUIP. .00 .00 .00 •00 32.98 .01 32.90 .00
_____________ ________-____ ------ ------ ------ - ----------------- - ----
TOTAL SUPPLIES • 1.053.91 .39 • 3.916.87 .56 • 1.792.26 .60 • 4.30!•71 .43
�' I
` MONT I CELLO MUNICIPAL L30U0R
I REVENUE AND EXPENSES
rte} MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
FOR THE TWELVE MONINS ENnF.D DFCEMBER 31, 1986 AND 1986
....................................................................................................................................
CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD TEAR -TO -DATE Y -T -D SAME -PD -LST -YR PD-LYR T -T -D -LST -YR YTD -LY
AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO
1. OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (AUDIT) • 510.00 .19 • 2.913.00 .29 • 69.5 .19 • 2.869.75 .29
COMMUNICATION 216.73 .OB 966.79 .00 103.75 .07 715.66 .07
t TRAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOLS .00 .00 210.80 .02 .00 .00 628.00 .06
ADVERTISI MO 608.20 .23 I.81).SS .18 1.060.53 .62 2.012.93 .21
INSURANCE. GENERAL 3.192.23 1.19 15.316.22 1.51 6.306.31 2.65 26.020.00 2.61
UTILITIE6. ELECTRICAL 1.292.25 .68 6.951.27 .69 1.722.68 .67 7.007.59 .72
UTILITIES. HEATING 363.92 .16 1.916.59 .19 1.087.07 .62 .•269.36 .23
UTILITIES. 8 L N 171.09 .06 516.60 .OS 77.28 .03 611.33 .06
MAINTENANCE OF EDUIPnENT 30e.0e .16 6.616.05 •6] 210.20 .08 2.19]•77 .23
b COUIPMENT 609.36 .15 1.569.36 .15 53.97 .02 ]95.77 .06
DUES, MEMBERSHIP• SUBSCRIPTION .00 .00 110.00 •02 160.00 .O6 160.00 .02
TAXES AND LICENSES 931.30 .15 1.030. SS .10 12.00 .00 103.25 .01
OARDAGE 316.50 .12 1.160.00 .Il 276.50 .11 1.062.00 .11
DEPR. - ACQUIRED ASSETS 2.528.39 .96 10.113.'5 1.00 2.693.86 1.05 10.775.36 1.11
��
F OTHER 579.91 .22 579.91 .06 220.08 .09 _=0 OB __-.0= f
-------J----` ------ ---- ------ ------------------- --- 1
r'. 5
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES I CHARGCS• 11,526.72 6.29 • 51.600.10 5.09 • 16.560.01 5.66 • 56.606.01 5-61 1
DEBTSERVICE
INTEREST • .00 .00 • 267.50 .02 • 762.50 .29 • 3.319.53 .36
PAYING AGENT FEES •00 .00 16.0' .00 •00 .00 20.00 .00
------------- ------------- -__--` .---.____-_j_ ____._ ___________✓ ------
2.
TOTAL DEBT SERVICER • _____.__._.�� ____00 • ____.. __b__�S .__ 0_ 6 .___.._762__0 __-_.0 • 3.]39.'3 ____�6
y� -------------
y TOTAL OENCRAL I ADIM. EXPENSES• 30.952.69 11.52 • 127.351.67 12.55 • .--_33.853.66 13.16 6 136.823.00 13.05
R _____________ ______ __..._ ------
-------------
, ___
r TOTAL OPCRATING INCOME • 30296.10 11.28 • 92.092.07 9.21 • 32.235.77 12.53 • 71.035.06 7.36
pe
6 OTHER INCOME 1EXPENSCO)
INTCRE81 INCOME • 0.590.06 3.57 • 29.750.9f 2.96 • 7.328.91 2.05 • 29.072.56 2.09
OTHER INCOME 129.50 .OS 661.66 .06 86.00 .0] 672.00 .OS
CASH LOMO/SNORT 66.30) 1 .02) 196.61) .02) 1 00.50) ( .061 1 .99.601 03)
------------- ------------------- ------ ______ __..__
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSEB) • 9.673.10 3.60 • 30.206.02 2.90 • -_---7_322_61 --2 06 • ____29__65_1• 3.01
NET 3NCOME • ...........3. ....OB • ...........•. ...... • ....3....•..e ...... • ....•......0. .. •...
i
MONTICELLOMUNICIPAL
LIQUOR
P•oa 1
GROSS PROFIT
BY PRODUCT
SOLD
t
Y
For
the P4rlo0
10/01/86 to 12/31/06
r
................................................................................
Co..... .
P4 od
Tear - to - Date
Amount
Y
Amount
Y
LIQUOR BALES
•
86.919.89
100.83 •
287.018.71
100.7•
1.
DISCOUNTS
1
713.831
1 .83/ /
2.101.891
1 .74)
COST OF SALES - LIQUOR
57.484.80
66.66
______ -----
212.769.0•
_-------
74.60
------
GROSS PROFIT
_____________
0
28.721.26
33.32 •
72.147.78
25.12
.............
...... .............
......
NEER SALES
128.450.04
100.54
544.262.48
100.61
DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS
1
605.61)
1 .54> <
7.282.88)
l .611
COST OF BALES - DEER
82.83
81.84
G
GROSS PROFIT
--_105_827.00
•
21.935.43
_--•42_732.90
17.17 •
90.246.62
18.16
i.............
...... .............
......
i 6
PINE BALES
45. '46:30
6.30
100.00
100.00
p
COST OF BALER - YINE
32.43A. 92
71.84
---------
_144.661.18
95.813.66
66.25
GROSS PROFIT
• ---_12.711.38
28.16 •
48.627.52
31.75
.............
...... .............
......
(�I
I!
OTHER BALES
6.901.76
100.19
27.141.84
99.13
ff
BOTTLE DEP0611 - MISC
1
13.10/
1 .19)
219.44
.B7
COST OF BALES - OTHER
8.441.60
122.54
__ _.__.
24.620.46
-__-__-:
09.92
_..._
_10.00
GROSS PROFIT
_____
41
________
1.553.02)
_
1_ .. 541•
2.760.0
•
NISC. NON-TAllADLE SALES
2.787.11
100.00
(4.891.86
100.00
COS - M18C. NOM IAKAOLE
1.775.73
63.80
10.928.92
73.39
GROSS PROFIT
-------------
6
1.007.30
36.20 •
...... .............
3.962.94
26.61
......
IOTAL BALES
.............
269.513.49
68].90
1.014.603.19
013.74
TOTAL COST OF BALES
207.539.81
457.12
792.406.22
321.41
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
•
.............
61.073.68
226.78 •
•.....
.. :.206.97
.............
492.14
......
a �
CITY OF MONTICELLO
REVENUES AND EXPENDTTURFS
GENERAL FUND - 001
FOR THE TNF1 VE MONTHS ENDED DECEMPEP 31. 1986
...................................................................... .................
.................................:...:.......
This Period This Period Tl- PariOd Y - T - D Y - T - D Y - T - D Annual
Actual B..dset Varimc9 Actual Budget Var Canoe Budeet
R1.VENUC
CURRENT AD VALOREM •
2P. 395 •
46•:50 •(
17.855)•
515.477 •
^5.000 •(
19.523)•
553.000
PENALTY WERE
35.855
2.158
33.697
47.126
23.900
21.226
25.900
P 3 I-ASM1'S-COUNTY-1 (
355)
17 l
372)
512
200
312
200
LIOUOR LICENSES
0
1.542 (
1.542)
15.161
10.500 1
3.339)
10.500
DEER
0
92 1
92)
1.485
1.100
385
1.100
OTHER
0
21 1
21)
325
250
75
250
BUILDING PERMITSJ
•201
.500
2.701
66.468
30.000
36.468
30.000
VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL US
150
125
25
1.000
1.500 1
500)
1.500
DINGG
0
B 1
8)
20
100 1
00)
100
ANIMAL LICENSES
0a
1
8)
50
100 1
50)
100
GAMBLING LICENSE
0
0
O
123
0
123
0
OTHER
4.170
373
3.837
4.170
4.000
170
4.000
OTHER
0
42 (
4
1.082
500
502
500
LOCAL GOVERMENT AID
85.712
14.283
71.429
171.423
171.400
23
171.400
HOMESTEAD CREDIT
10.740
0
10.740
21.4111
0
21.481
0
R R REFUDD REIMBURSEMCNT
0
0
O
267
0
267
0
MRDIL NOME CREDIT
1.026
0
1.026
1.026
0
1.026
0
FIRE DEPARIMCNI AID
01.646
1
1.646)
28.176
19.750
0.426
19.750
PRLICE DEPARTMENT AID
12.179
9^5
11.254
12.179
11.100
1.079
11.100
STATE GRANTS AND AIDS -
0
221 (
' 21)
X44
4.907
2
-.650 257
2.650
GENERAL OOVCRMENT
71
33
11184
400
984
400
PUBLIC SAFETY
4.007
954
3•.33
29.318
11.450
17.860
11.450
STREETS C.S.A.N. MAINIEN
4.710
375
4.343
4.718
4.500
216
4.500
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
5.670
4.750
920
55.024
57.000 1
1.176)
57.000
RF,CREATION
1.702
0
1.702
1.702
0
1.702
0
OTHER <
63)
33 (
96)
699
400
^99
400
SUDDIVISION FEES
1.750
333
1.417
1.279
4.000 1
2.7211
4.000
INTEREBT INCOME.
69.474
2.917
66.557
69.002
35.000
34.002
35.000
ANIMAL IMPOUNDMENT
1.270
375
903
5.065
4.500
565
4.500
INITIATION - APPLICATION
0
42 1
42)
548
500
48
500
"us
300
300
0
3.600
3.600
0
3.600
SALE OF PROPERTY
72
03 1
11)
2.934
1.000
1.934
1.000
CONTRIB1.1110NS/DONATIONS
0
917 1
9171
2.205
11.000 1
5.795)
11.000
OTHER
47
a39
1.899
100
1.799
100
ADMIN/INSPEC REIMS - PRO
19.124
0]
19.041
19.124
1.000
18.124
1.000
REFUNDS AND REIMDURBEMEN
30.200
333
29.875
39.701
4.000
]5.703
4.000
TRANSFER IN
29.705
0
29.78'1
29.705
0
29.705
0
TOTAL RL'VCNUCO •
_.2.020 •
01.700 •
2?0.]12 •
1.101.72Y •
vp0.400 •
200.929 •
990.500
FXPENDI TURES
MAYOR AND COUNCIL •
1.400 •
662 61
5381•
10.570 •
10.350 •1
220)•
10.350
ASSESSMENTS
1.235
1.158 1
77)
1].937
13.049 (
301
13.900
GFNCRAL 1NSURANCC 4
6.053)
5.000
11.053
44•:06
60.000
15.794
60.000
j
4
SqY
CITY
OF MONTICELLO
REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES
1
I�
GENERAL FI1ND -
001
.r......................................
FOR THE TYFLV
....S.E D.
...........:....E .MfN.TNED.DE..........
..19
...
............................................
This Period
Thl T. Period
This Period
Y - 7 - D Y
- T - D
I - T - D
Anr;e:I
Actual
Bade.,
Variance
Ar tuef
B,,dset
Variance
D...dest
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
1.957
333
(
1.624)
15.454
e.000 1
11.454)
4.000
ADMINISTRATION
7.280
7.504
224
80.066
90.049
1.983
90.050
FT HANCE
!1.875
7.350
1
4.325)
104.:38
88.199 (
16.030)
88.200
AUDIT
0
729
729
8.500
8.750
250
8.750
LFOAL
BBB
708
1
180)
11.338
8.500 (
2.8313
8.500
PLANNING AND ZONINO BIDO
1.741
1.908
167
20.058
2.099
7.041
2.900
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
2.400
1.887
(
5731
•218
2.650 1
.568)
2.650
CITY MALL
2.479
1.758
1
721)
15.658
21.099
5.441
21.100
(
LAY ENFORCEMENT
10.358
10.350
0
124.200
124.300
10
124.300
FIFE DEPARTMENT
5.430
4.604
l
826)
75.898
.249 1
Jv.e49
20.6491
5.250
'9.650
CiV IL BEFENSE
515
804
299
0.376
27]
ANIMAL CONTROL
2.119
1.025
1
1.094)
12.562
12.300 f
262)
12.300
p
ADMINISTRATION 1 CNGINEE
6.739
4.575
(
2.163)
51.733
54.890
3.146
54.900
STREE T8 AND ALL
19.879
11.137
<
0.742)
126.657
131.649
6.092
133.650
SNOW AND ICE
3.047
1.117
1
1.930)
8.284
13.400
3.116
13.400
t
STREET LIGHTING
3.082
2.483
1
1.3991
30.380
29.800 1
5891
29.800
i
P111LIC PARA INS LOTS
65
233
168
736
2.1)
2.064
2.800
j
SHOP AND GARAGE
3.362
054
1
2.508)
10.757
10.250 l
507,
10.250
Y
REFUSE COLLECTION
7.771
6.333
1
1.440)
76.200
76.000 1
200)
76.000
-
SENIOR CITIZENS/MUSEUM
2.414
2.062
1
372)
^2.785
24.749
1.964
24.750
-�
YMCA
1.058
520
(
529)
6.350
6.150
0
6.350
ADVERT 181M0
5.935
3.004
(
2.1]1)
45.725
45.649 /
761
45.650
COMM. DEVEL. ECO.. DEVEL
6.681
2.375
1
6.306)
27.000
.0.500
600
20.500
ELECTIONS
S4
212
TSB
2.944
..550 1
394)
2.550
PI ANT AND LAB (
381)
0
IB1
0
0
0
0
TRANSFER OUT
____________
0
0
0
71.350
O 1
71.350)
0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES • -----106_13-
•
____________.___
01-707
•/
24.425>•
_.___.__
1.061.199 •
•(
._710
00.7101•
:._
a
RFVENUCB OVER CKPENDIIUR•
745.088 •
1
•
.45.887 •
___ -_---080-409
1^0.1^8 •
10 •
---_._ ....
110. ;;a •
__---980__00
O
E
............
............
............
............ ............
............
............
GEE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT.
o�I
f CITY OF MONTICELLO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
SEWER FUND - 061
fOR THF. TNEI VE nONTNS ENDED DECEMPEP 31. 1986
...............................................................................r....................................................
This Period This Portod Th1• Part Od Y - T - D Y - T - D Y - T - D Annual
Actual Budget Vor &e c• Ac tu41 Budaot Ver t.nc. Budeot
1-
REVENUE
P • I-ASAT'S-COUNTY-1 •1
39315
31 •1
Qat•
165 •
373 H
210)•
373
STATE AIDS - OTHER
0
42 <
421
0
500 l
5001
500
NOOK-UP8 AND PERMITS
3.640
1.000
2.6.0
19.255
12.000
7.253
12.000
(.
USER FEES
95.761
20.710
75.051
306.839
248.525
58.31•
248.525
LATE PENALTIES
87
63
24
929
750
179
750
OTHER
0
25 l
'5>
294
300 1
6)
300
RENTS
000
350
430
4.350
4.200
150
4.200
AnMIN/INSPEC REIMS - PRO
3.187
42
3.145
3.187
500
2.667
S00
RFFUND9 AND REIMPURSEMEN
3.ive
0
3.Ive
3•]90
0
3.390
0
TRANSFER IN
_•500
0
2.500
..500
0
2.500
0
____ ______';_;__
----
_____-___
__ _____-____._
------------
____________
____'
------------
___�
e
TOTAL REVENUES •
109.779 •
-_..62 •
06.•17 •
340.910 •
.67.130 •
73.760 •
_67.150
c
EXPENDITURES
o
iNTERCST EY •
999 •
0 •1
9991•
999 •
0 61
9991•
0
MA1NT. OF EOUIPMCNT SUPP 1
17)
0
17
0
0
0
0
PLANT AND LAP
19.079
19.462
383
260.947
233.549 1
27.3°01
233.550
1
COLLECTION SyBTEn
1-_-----3.8651
1----_--7_707)
-_--_-31_600
------
0
-------6_66S
0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES •
-_-_---2_800
_6.726 •
2 62 •1
------------
•.4641•
-_----13.599
303.3]2 •
267 140 •1
36.184)•
------------
267.150
REVENUES OVER E%PEND2TUR• ......8..0..
• ...........0
• ......8..
... • ......3...8.
• ............
• ......3.....
• ...........0
•
a
SEE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT.
y CITY OF MONTICELLO
SUFPORTINO SCHEDULES
FOR
., TME TYFLVE MONTHS ENDED DECE nBFR 31. 1986
..........................•........................................................................................................
THIS PERIOD THISPERIOD THIS PERIOD Y - T - D Y - T - D Y D ANNUAL
I. ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE BUDGET
COLLECTION SYSTEM
'
PCIISONAL SERVICES
SALARIES •
I.743 •
1•:79 •(
•p4 )i
17.802 •
15.350 •1
2.452)•
1S•350
SALARIES - OVERTIME
229
1.6 <
D3)
1.977
1.750 (
177)
1.750
SALAR ICS - TEMPORARY
567
IS. 1
413)
-,790
1.850 1
672)
1.050
PFRA IPC N510N)
112
67 1
45)
800
10
000
E
INSURANCE• MEDICAL AND L
265
150 <
1151
•260
1.000 (
46 0)
1.000
SDCI AL SECURITY - FICA
;Be
117 l--_.----_-71)
1.336 -_-_-__1_•00
__---__1_100
C
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 4
3.104 •
1.912 •(
1.192)•
.6.657 •
22.950 •(
3.707)6
.2.950
a
'
BSIIPPLIES
I,CNCRAL OFCRA11N0 CUPPLI4
917 •
125 •(
792)6
1.650 •
1.500 •1
158)•
1.500
MOTOR FUELS AND LUDRICAN
73
83
10
202
1.000
738
1.000
'
Fl DTIII NO SUPPLIES
52
17 (
15)
22•
200 l
24 )
200
nA1NT. OF COU IFMENT SUPP
17
79
62
•l7
950
533
950
MAINT. OF VrCNILC SUPPLI
0
13
13
40
150
I10
150
SMALL TOOLS AND MINORS E
0
0
0
__---_-2.601
O
----___3
100
______-1.:99
100
-_--___3.900
100
TOTAL SUPPLIES • __•---_1.059
It
325 •(---_-_--_71.)•
•
.900 •
•
E
'f
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
I'll FISSIONAL SERVICES •
0 •
250 •
250 •
1.083 •
3.000 •
1.117 •
3.000
CE
(`DMMUN ICATION
40
17 t
23)
2.1
200 1
41)
200
p�
TRAVEL-CONFERENCC-SCHOOL
0
17
17
100
200
100
200
6
INSURANCE 1
37 9)
0
379
933
0 1
933)
0
'
IIT IL 111ES - ELECTRICAL
13•
142
0
1.635
1.700
65
1.700
MAINTCNANCC OF EDU IPMCNT 1
2.519)
SOS
2.627
2.076
1.300 1
77 6)
1.300
MAINTCNANC C OF VCCNILEa
0
21
25
33
300
265
300
DIIEB-MCMIII: RONIPS-SUBSCRI
0
4
•
0
50
------------
50
-----------'
50
_....__•____
TOTAL OTHER SERVICED • C u
------------
2.724)6
------------
562 •
-----------
3.206 •
' -----------
6.903 •
6.710 1111
153)•
6.750
FAFIIAL OUTLAY
IIL'I•R. - ACOUIRCD - COLL •
5.083 •
0 •(
------------
5.003)6
------------
5.003 •
------------
0 6(
--.--_----__
0.083)•
0
IRTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 6
_.--.--_---.
5.083 •
O •.
5.0031•
---------=--
5.003 •
------------
0 •(
--------'---
5.003>•
------------
0
_-...-�...r-.
TOTAL COLLCCIION SYBTCM •
....•.......
------------
6..22 •
............
------------
2.800 •(
............
3.7^.)•
............
•1.^4• •
............
33.599 •1
............
7.640•
•...........
33.600
CITY OF MONTICELLO
SUPPORTING SCHEDULES
roR THE TUELVE WORTHS ENDED OCCEnBFR 31. 1904
......................................................................................................................._............
THISPERIOD THIS PERIOD THIS PERIOD T - T - D Y - T - D Y - T - D ANNUAL
). ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE BUDGET
m
PLANT AND LAD
11CRSONAL GCrVICCS
SALARIES •1
5.321)•
7.200 •
12.521 •
47.946 •
86.400 •
38.454 •
86r400
GALARIES - OVERTIME
0
333
313
1.170
4.000
2.030
4.000
SALARIES - TEMPORARY
0
625
625
5.947
7.500
1.553
7.500
PFRA tPC NSION) 1
51)
342
393
2.176
4.100
1.924
•.100
INSURANCE• MEDICAL AND L (
21
592
594
4.697
7.100
2.403
7.100
SOCIAL SECURITY - FICA 1
851
621
706
3.907
____________
7.430
3.463
7.450
____________
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES •1
____________
5.4591•
____________
9.712 •
____________
15.171 •
65.922 •
116.550 •
50.620 0
116.550
SI IPPL I ES
UFFICC SUPPLIES •
0 •
158 •
150 •
675 •
1.900 •
1.225 •
1.900
SrNErAL OPCrATIt1G SUPPLI
0
1.202
1.292
3.463
1..•500
12.037
15.500
MOTOR FUELS AND LUDRICAN
0
308
308
1.000
3.700
2.611
3.700
r,LOTHINO SUPPLIES
40
246
190
5 8
2.950
2.302
2.050
MA; "I OF EQUIPMENT SUP PL
0
917
917
6.434
11.000
4.566
11.000
MAINT. OF VECHILE SUPPLE
0
100
100
34
1.300
1.266
1.300
nAINT. OF DLDO SUPPLIES
0
130
138
778
1.650
072
1.650
SMALL TOOLS AND MINORS E
0
150
150
2.706
1.800 /
_...__•'-_•-
906)
-----------
1.800
-.....-"".
TOTAL SUPPLIES •
----"'---_•
48 •
---------
3.317 •
--------:--�-
3.269 •
------------
15.748 •
39.000 •
24.052 4
39.000
OTHER SERVICESAND CHARO19
PI;OrCSSIONAL SERVICES 6
.2.125 •
337 •1
21.7921•
106.155 •
4•000 It
102.1551•
4.000
rOMMUNICATION
0
180
108
1.580
250
662
250
TRAVEL-CONFCRENCC-SCHOOL
0
83
B7
214
1.000
786
1.000
UTILITIES - ELECTRICAL t
1.5531
3.250
4.003
26.171
39.000
12.829
30.000
U11L1 TICK - NEAT INO
O
1.917
1.017
12.572
23.000
10.420
27.000
MAINTENANCE Or EOUIPMCNI
1•
417
407
7.962
5.000
1.038
5.000
MAINTCNANCE OF DUILDINa
325
25 t
3001
3.057
300 1
2.757)
300
MAINTENANCE OF VE CHILES
0
67
67
45go
0755
.00
rrNTAL or EQUIPMENT
0
2•
0
OTHER
0
6
t
517
VIES. MEMDEPHSIPS AND SU
0
a
a
no;
too75
t
1071
100
RUDAS
0
4
4
0
50
50
50
LAND ACQUISITIONS
0
106
106
1.327
1.275 1
52)
1.275
I NSURANCC 1
2.921)
0
2.921
15.530
0 1
15.5701
0
TOTAL OTHER OCRVICES t C•
17.991 •
6.473 •t
11.558)6
171.810 •
77.199 •t
94.6101•
77.200
�� I
CITYOF NONTICELLO
F •!
SUPPORTING SCHEDULES
f
FOR THE luFI VE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31. 1986
..................................................e.r...:..rr........r..............................................................
THIS PERIOD THISPERIOD THIS PERIOD Y - T - D Y - T - D Y - T - D ANNUAL
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE DUDGET
CAPITAL OUTLAY
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES 6 960 • 0 •( 960)• 0 6 0 6 0• 0
------------ ------------ ------------ ---------3----------------"'-------------------
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY a/ 9601: 0 s 960 • 0 • 0 • 0 0
DFPR. - ACOUIRED - PLANT: 3.373 • 0 tl ..•]7]1• 3. 73 0 t•( 5. 37316 0
TOIAL PLANT AND LAD • 16.99: * 19•4S2 :•670 • 250.860 1 233.369 6
1 23.3111• 23]•350
............ 14 1! ............ ............ ............ •........... ............
t
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_.� REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING -024
FOR THE TNF.I.VE MONTHS E1:DEG DECEMBER 11. 1956
•......o. u..reua.rs... w........ sa:ws.......:wwawsw...o...............an.aa..w......w..w.......s..s.o::o..w..:....w..:. a
ThisPsriod Thio P.riod This P.rlod Y - T - D T - T - D Y - T - D An -0I
AC1u.I Bud6at Wr i.nC. ACtuii Buds.t V—so—o Duds.t
SCE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORI,
i
i�l r
-,/
REVENUE
CURRENT AD VALOREM •
6.663 6
12.396 9l
5.71314
143.030 s
148.750 9(
5.720)6
148.750
P f I-ASAT'8-COUNTY-1 <
595)
204 t
799)
2+448
2+450 f
2)
2.450
HOMESTEAD CREDIT
2.870
0
2.870
5.756
0
5.756
0
'
INTERS INCOME (
5.502) (
5671
4.935 (
5.5021 t
6.800) (
1.298) (
6.800)
REFUNDS AND RE INSURSEMEN
------------
0
____________
0
____________
0
55.000
0
55.000
0
TOTAL REVENUES •
14.467 9
11.167 ♦
____________
1.300 4
____________
211.736 s
____________
158,000 s
__.._---._--.
53.736 s
158+000
EXPENDITURES
LAND ACOUISTION •
106.475 •
0 ft
106.475)6
106.475 s
0 9t
106.475){
0
I.INALLOCATED
0
13,167
13.167
98
'50.000
157,902
158.000
TRANSFER OUT
0
O
27.925
- t
27+925>
p
e
TOTAL EXPENDITURES •
--_0
146+475 4
11.167 •<
03.108)•
.__..__.._.
114.498 •
150.000 s
-
21.•0. •
- -- ------------
1'8.000
REVENUES OVER EXPENDITUR•(
............
92.008)•
............
0 •(
............
92.000)9
..........s.
77.210 •
............
0 •
.r..........
77.238 •
............
p
SCE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORI,
i
i�l r
-,/
4
CITY OF MONTICELLO
REVENUES LAND EXPENDITURES YATER FUND - 063
FOR TME TYELVE MONS ENDED DECEMBER 31. 1986
........................................��...................T..N...................>a........................r.............e..........
Th- P•r10d Th- Par1o0 Thr% P•r100 Y - T T - D AnnaI
Actu41 Bud/at Varranco Actual Duo/et Vart.nc. Dud/et
RFVENUE
(- CURRENT AD VALOREM /
2.768 •
471 4
,
_•297 4
5.557 6
5.650 •(
93)4
5.650
P • I-ASMT'S-COUNTY-1 1
117)
4 (
121)
O
50 (
50)
50
NDMESTEAD CREDIT
f10
0
110
220
0
220
0
•- SALES TAA <
321 )
0 l
321 )
O
0
0
0
USE COLLECTIONS
.508
5.133
17.175
71.89 4
64.000
7.094
64.000
NOOK -UPS AND PERMITS
4.730
750
3.980
19.16 9
9.000
10.169
9.000
( LATE PCNALTIES
10
50
20
74 2
600
142
600
1141 EFEST INCOME
1.281
146
1.133
1.281
" 0 l
4691
1.750
OTHER
449
21
420
75 5
250
505
250
ADnI' SPEC REIMD - PRO
7.187
0
3.107
3.18 7
0
3.187
0
TRANSFER IN
4.000
0
4.000
O
0
-_4.000
______-__---
0
______j
TOTAL REVCNUES •
____________
38.665 •
____________
6.775 •
_-_----4.00
31.090 6
.___._-_----
106.80 4 4
_____
01.300 •
-5.504 •
81.300
i
i F):PENDITUR'ES
• •
4.707 •
2.479 •(
_ 2201•
33.78 5 4
29.750 •(
4.035)•
29.750
iSALARIES
SALARIES - OVERTIME
229
133 (
961
2.175
1.600 /
575)
1.600
i SALARIES - TEMPORARY
402
54 1
340)
2.40 7
650 l
1.817)
650
' F.RA (PENSION)
163
113 (
50)
1.45 5
1.350 1
1051
1.350
UNEMPLOYMENT DENEF116
0
0
0
10 O
0(
1001
0
" UFANCE• MEDICAL AND L
270
317
47
3.978
3.000 /
1781
3.800
SOCIAL 6ECUR I TY - FICA
275
192 4
031
2.49 6
2.300 (
1961
2.300
(iF NCR AL OPCRATSNO OUPPLI
2.610
1.458 1
1.1521
27.937
17.500 1
6.4311
17.500
MOTOR FUELS AND LUDRICAN
73
50 (
231
556
600
44
600
CLOTHINO SUPPLIES
45
25 (
20)
249
300
51
300
MAINZ. OF EOUIPMENi BUPP
7
25
fP
1.07 ]
300 1
7731
300
MAIM. OF VECHILE 6UPPLI
0
8
8
33 3
100 (
2371
100
MAINZ. OF DLDO SUPPLIER
0
17
17
2 2
200
170
200
1
PROFC6810NAL SERVICES
1.380
150 1
1.210)
4.07.^,
1.000 l
..2721
1.500
E(1MMUNICATI ON
122
61 (
551
92!1
S00 4
121)
800
' TRAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOL
30
21 1
17)
396
250 1
136)
250
IIIILITICB - ELECTRICAL
1.902
1.417 (
565)
17.097
17.000 <
911
17.000
I111LIT IES - ELECTRICAL
6
0 1
61
3 6
0 1
]6)
0
MAINIE NANCE OF EOUIPMENI
301
250 1
131)
1'.73 3
7.000 4
12.7331
3.000
INSURANCE - GENERAL 1
2.904)
0
2..904
5.89 7
0 <
5.0951
O
DIIEO-MCMUCR£HIPa-6UDSCRI
0
0
O
14 O
0 1
1401
0
DCPR. - ACOUIRCD
1.001
0 1
1.001)
1.001
0 1
1.0011
---------
0
____________
TnIAL EXPENDITURES •
____________
10.707 6
____________
6.775 •(
__________�
4.012)6
_ __-..._____.
117.91 4 f
------------
01.299 •1
]6.615)6
_ ------------
01.300
---'_------•
REVENUES OVER CAPENDITUR•
............
------------
27.870 •
............
--•--------
0 •
............
-----------
27x070 •(
............
----------•-
11.10 914
............
-----------
0 •(
............
11.10916
............
0
GEE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT.
+arc 01
t
CITY OF MONTICEI,10
REVEL PES
ARKSNUFS AND RECREATIONPFUND
7UR 100 1C^11 lr44.1. F." D '
• FOR THE Tn..
WIVE nONTNS ENDED DECEM9F F' 31. 198e
.........................
............................... a...a.....:.................a........r.....:..:........... — ...............
This Pa r iod This Period Thia Pariod Y - T - D Y - T - 0 T - T - D Annual
Actual SVdpt Varian.• Ac Wel Sudsat Varunc. Sudest
c
REVENUE
CURRENT AD VALOREM E
13+160 i
..292 s
10+076 f
26+271 ♦
27.500 f(
1.229)6
27+500
HOMESTEAD CRCDIT
531
0
531
1.062
0
1.062
0
LCMR GRANT
0
..292 (
..292)
24.750
27.500 f
2.750)
27.500
EDNTRIOU TIONS/DONATIONS
O
0
0
300
0
300
0
TRANSFER I
__-___--_6--
.5.000
------------
0
25.000
52.9250
52.925
0
TOTAL REVCNUCS i
36.699 i
------------
4.583 i
------------
34.116 i
------------
105.308 1
------------
55.000 E
------------
50*308 i
55.000
CXPENDITURES
INTEREST CXPENSE s
188 f
0 s(
t6A)$
188 s
0 it
too)$
0
SALARIES
299
0 (
2891
170147
0 1
17.8871
p
SALARIES - OVERTIME
0
0
0
3.004
O t
3.0041
0
SM ARIES - TEMPORARY
0
0
0
39
0 /
391
p
PERA (PENSION!
12
0 f
t2>
BR7
0 (
887)
0
INSURANCE. MEDICAL AND L
0
0
0
1.689
0 f
1.669)
0
SOCIAL 6CCUR 111 - FICA
^1
0 l
21)
1+606
0 (
1.496)
0
IMPROVEMENTS OTHER 7HAN
--------
2.157
---
4.5A3
2.426
71.632
`w5+000 (
:+632)
55.000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES f
-------6----
-------4.5803-
_ 667 i
-.-,___9
-----
------
1;2-824
;;000
-__.-_--._4-0-4
._----
47.8`4
1i
55.000
REVENUES OVCR EXPENDITURE
............
-----------
3.0 E
............
------------
............
............
3A0
..........8.
------------
............
---------
............
2
s...........
------
SCE /ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT.
irarl
CITY OF MTTNIICFLI.O
RFVENUI'S ANP EXPENDITURES
LIBRARY FLIND - 105
FOR THE TWFI VE nONTHS ENDED DFCEN PI'R 31. 1986
.........................................
......................c...............c.......s...........c........................................................................
Thta Portod Th1• Porlod Th.,, P. n od Y - T - D Y. -"T.- D Y - T - D Annual
I Actual Dudaot Vr.A Actual oa t Vor—hco I de.t
t-
REVENUE
CURRENT AD VALOREM •
11.102 •
1.913 •
9.189 •
,
_2.172 •
22.950 •(
7781•
2.950
HA ESTCA D CREDIT
443
0
443
BPS
O
885
O
I.
INTEREST INCOME
0 1
0) 1
81
0 (
1001 1
1001 '
100)
RI.NTAL CHARGES
-----------
560
------------
42
------------
518
5600
500
60
500
1
IDTAL REVENUES 6
1:.105 •
1.962 •
------------
10.143 •
-----""---
23.617 •
------------
23.550 •
------------
67 •
23.,50
EYPENDI T ORES
INTEREST EXPENSE •
509 •
0 •(
5091•
509 •
0 61
5091•
p
SALARIES
10
71
61
749
850
101
650
t
PIRA 'PENSION)
0
4
4
32
50
IB
50
INSURANCE. MEDICAL AND L
0
17
17
133
200
67
.200
SPCIaL SECURITr - FICA
1
4
3
54
50 <
4)
50
GENERAL OPERATING SUPPLI
435
8] l
3521
692
1.000
308
1.000
i
MAIN. OF EOUI PMENT SUPPL
5
0 1
251
25
0 <
25)
0
MAIMT. OF BLDG SUPPLICS
59
67
8
409
B00
391
B00
PROFESSI ONAL SCRVICEB
510
411 1
97)
5.3.'8
4.950 1
378)
4.950
i
COMMUNICATION 1
30)
67
105
99
000
701
800
6
TRAVEL -C ONFER ENE" -SCHOOL
114
0 1
114)
114
O <
1141
0
UT IL IIIC S - ELCCTR ICAL
969
692 (
277)
6.723
8.300
1.577
8.300
ADVERTISING
26
0 (
261
48
O '
481
0
MAINTENANCE OF EOUIPMEMI
177
75 1
102)
1.190
900 1
290)
900
PRINTING-BINDINO-PUBLISH
0
4
4
0
50
50
50
INSURANCE - 0 CRAL (
170)
too
270
1.830
1.200 1
6301
1•:00
.NES-MENDERSHIPB-GUDSCRI
33
B '
25)
33
100
67
100
OTHER
400
4 (
375)
400
]00 1
100)
]00
FURNITURE aND FI)TURES
0
333
18_633)
TRIAL CX F[NDI IUR[B •
------------
____-__]33
3.059 •
------------
1 Oe. •(
------12_635
1.0971•
]1.010 •
_4.000
2].y4v •(
-__-__-4.000
7.4611•
23•,,0
RI'VENUES OVER EXPENDITUR•
............
9.046 •
............
------------
0 •
............
------------
9.046 •4
............
-----�
7.39])•
............
_..-�_------------
t •1
............
------------
7.394)•
•...........
p
SEE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT.
J
CITY OF MONTICELLO
SCC ACCOUNTANTS' rOMPILATION RCPORT.
1%.-I or
- -'
RFVENUFS
ANT, EXPFNDITURES
SHADE
TREE FUND -
110
-
................................................Pnn..n...n..ns................
FOR THE TWFLVE MONTRS ENDED
DECEMPI.R 31. 191.6
........ ..........................n....................
Th.•Period This Per.od Th,,
Pvr.,Od
Y - T - D Y
- T- D Y
- T - 0
nnual
Actual
Budget Ver�ancv
Artu.I
Budevt
Ver lent•
0udeatA
REVENUE
(-
CURRENT AD VALOREM •
9.059 •
1.363 4
7.496 •
1R.079 •
10.750 •l
6715•
18.750
P• 1-ASMT'S-COUNT Y-1
08
0
4P
97
0
92
O
HDMCSTEAD CREDIT
:1
0
S6�
726
0
726
0
1-
USER FEES
0
167 (
1671
2.063
2.000
BAl
2.000
INTEREST INCOME
3.938
292
3.646
3.938
3.300
438
3.500
OTHER
0
0
0
B
0
B
0
(
OTHER
60
25
____________
3g
750
____________ ____________
300
____________
450
300
____________
TOTAL REVENUES •
____________
13.460 •
____________
2.046 •
11.422 •
26.456 6
24.550 •
1.906 •
24.550
E
F.%PENDITUREB
Y
SALARIES •
57 •
542 •
405 •
5.524 •
6.500 •
976 •
6.500
t
BALARIEB - OVERTIME
0
0
0
70
0 1
701
0
e
BALARIEB - TEMPORARY
0
03
B3
1.797
1.000 1
797)
1.000
VERA (PENSION'
2
21
19
236
250
14
250
UNE NPLOYMENI DENEF.IS
30
0 /
3n1
30
0 1
301
0
T NSURANCC. MEDICAL AND L
14
42
2:
519
500 (
191
500
SOCIAL SECURITY - iICA
4
42
38
397
500
SO]
500
(
GFNERAL OPERATING SUPPLI
0
8
8
42
100
50
100
SMALL TOOLS AND MINORS E
0
4
4
21
SO
29
50
NOT OR FUEL: AND LUBRICAN
43
17 l
26)
ISS
200
45
200
CLOTHINO SUFPLI[B
0
4
4
v0
'0 1
401
'0
MAINT. OF EOUIPNENT SUPP
0
17
17
270
200 l
781
200
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
0
125
125
:•390
1.500 1
890)
1.500
TRAVEL -CONFERENCE-BCROOL
0
0
0
BO
0 1
00)
0
IMPROVEMEN TB 07NER THAN
0
0
O
1'9
0 1
139)
O
MACHINERY AND EOUIPMFNT
0
340
L--___
--1=142 --_----1-142
-___-_13-3-2 ------13-700
___ ------------
------13-700
•
TOTAL EXPENDITURES •
151 •
2.046 •
1.895 •
25.139 •
. 4.549 •(
59010
-24.550
i
RFVCNUEB OVER CYPCNDITUR•
1].318 •
............
0 •
............ ............
13•JIB •
1.317 •
............ ............
1 •
............
1.316 •
0
•...........
SCC ACCOUNTANTS' rOMPILATION RCPORT.
1%.-I or
- -'
f " CITY OF MONTICEI,LO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
REVENUE SNARING - 170
FUR iNr: iYF I.VE MI1N 1X5 ENDED DECE MBF.F 31. 19R6
.............. ...... ....-................. .........s..........a..............s.cns................................................
This Period T1,11 Period This P1rlod Y - T - D Y - T - D V - T - D Annual
AttulI Budflt Ven Ann• Attufl Sudfet Von lntf Budsu•.
t.
REVENUE
FEDERAL REVENUE SNARING 1
1.646 1
7.5P3 1(
5.917)•
62.318 1
91.000 41
29.68211
91.000
INTEREST INCOME
4.RP0
4f7
4,463
4.880
____________
5.000 /
---------
1201
___
5.000
_
♦-'
____________
YnTAL REVENUES •
____________
6.526 1
____________
8.000 11
____________
1.474)1
67,198 1
96.000 1(
28.80211
96.000
EXPENDITURES
'
AID 10 OTHER GOVT'S 1
0 1
1.125 1
1.125 1
13.500 1
13.500
0
1]•500
11 11 1 LDINO AND STRUCTURES
4.697
125 (
4.772)
�. 897
1.500 1
3.397)
1.500
1MPROVEMENI6 OTXER THAN
1.02•
2.629
705
63.403
11.550 1
]1.8351
31.550
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
1.907
1.696 (
2111
26.869
20.350 1
6.5191
20.350
MACHINERY AND EOUIPMENt
1.1^O
2.7"5
1.605
30.188
].•700
2.51.
____ ------------
32•700
____________
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1
____________
9.848 1
_________
8.300 1l
_ ------------
1.540)•
------------
138,059 1
-------
99.600 1l
39•^591•
99.600
a
1
REVENUES OVER EXPCNDI IUR11
............
3.322)11
............
]00111
............
1.022)1(
............
71.06111(
............
1.600)11
............
68.061111
............
3.6001
f 5
t
1
t
SCE ACCOUNTAN TB' COMPILATION REPORT.
t
CITY OF MONTICELLO
1 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA - 130
................................................aa.s........vv.......a..........a..........s......v.......ss........................
FOR THE TUELVE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMPFR 31. 1986
Thi•Period
This Po r to6 Thl•
Pv11o0
Y - T - D Y
- T - D
Y - T - D
Annul
Actual
Butivvt V6riancv
Artu61
Butla.t
Ver i....
Budget
REVENUE
CURRENT AD VALOREM •
18.7995
•
15.526
7.501 •
39.300 •t
1.7991•
39.300
mnMESTEAD CREDIT
760
0
760.5:0
0
1.520
0
SRANT 6AN D AIDS FROM Lac
19 6
33
163
1;6
400(
2061
600
TRANSFER I
0
0
0
71.350
------------
0
71.350
------------
0
-----------
TnTAL REVENUES •
19.75j5 •
_______ ____________
3.308 •
16.667 1
_________j__
110.'67 •
39.700 •
70.867 •
39.700
EXPENDITURES
INTCREST EXPENSE •
6.258 •
0 •l
6.:587•
6.258 •
0 •(
6.2581•
0
SAI ARIES
503
83 t
6221
1.066
1.000 (
661
1.000
CnNSTRUCT ION COSTS -1
13.750
3.083 t
10.6671
27.500
37.000
9.500
37.000
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
0
125
125
695
1.5001.005
1.500
TRAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOL
57
17 c
40)
120
200
80
200
------------
TnTAL EXPENDITURES •
------------------------
•
------------
•t------15.:6_1•
------------ ------------
6
-39_700 •
------------
_-_-__-6--83 •
------39=700
RFVCNUES OVER EXPCNDITUR•
------18_570
1.185 •
............
-----_-3_308
O •
............ ............
1.185 •
------33.617
77.150 •
............ ............
0 •
77.150 •
............
0
............
SCC ACCOUNTANTO' COMPILATION REPORT.
ae�f
l
6
C17Y OF MONTICELLO
' y REVENUES AND EXPENDITURFS
HFA FUND - 110
:2:.:.
OP TME TVELVE MONTHS ENDED DECCMPFR 31. 1986
........................................... ..:......................................................................................
Th)•Period This Poriod Th)• Per)Od Y - i - D Y - 7 - D Y - 1 - D Annual
t Actual Budvt V0r¢•nca Actual Bud•et Vlr .1- Bud•.t
l
REVENUE
TAXES •
4•871 •
833 •
1.038 •
9.861 •
10.000 •(
136)•
!0.000
AD VOLOREM (INCREMI
0
5.750 (
5.730)
0
69.000 l
69.000)
69.000
TAX INCREMENTS - DIST •2
1.957
0
1.957
3.532
0
3.53'
0
I
NDMESTEAD CREDIT
19:
0
192
3B5
0
385
0
INTEREI INCOME
8.761
716
8.615
0.761
1.750
7.011
1.750
'
INITIATION - APPLICATION
0
200 (
208)
1.'00
.•500 <
1.300)
2.500
r
BALE OF LAND
0
0
O
62.000
0
62.000
0
TOTAL REVENUES •
15.781 1
6.937 •
8.811 •
85.712 •
8]•250 •
2.192 •
01.250
6
C%PENDITUFES
INTEREST E%PENS[ •
5.536 •
0 •(
5.536)0
13.130 •
0 •(
13.1301•
0
=
OTHER E%PENS[
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
0
17
0
0 (
0
171
718
2.053
0(
0 (
7181
2.053)
0
0
n
ADVERIISINO
0
0
0
118
0(
118>
0
NFA
7.918
0 (
7.918)
0].61]
O (
$3.613)
0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
111
0 (
U 21
L1.320
0 t
11.329)
0
ADMIN { INSFEC FEC9
1.672
0 (
1.672)
1.672
0 (
1.672)
0
(
INICREST CYPENSE
12.381
0 (
12.38•)
12.381
0 (
12.381)
0
SALARIES
0
371
371
1.150
1.150
0
•.150
F[RA PENSION)
0
17
17
189
200
I1
200
G
snCIAL SECURITY - FICA
0
29
29
310
350
32
350
6
OrF ICC SUPPLIES
0
1
•
0
50
50
50
IT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
0
63
63
0
750
750
750
CMMMUNICA TION
0
•
1
0
50
50
50
TRAVEL -CO NrERENCE-SCHOOL
0
21
21
366
250 (
116)
250
LEGAL PUBLICAII115
0
17
1)
0
200
200
200
(
INSURANCE - G[NEFAL
0
11
17
0
200
200
200
DIIE$-MEMBERSHIPS-SUDSCR1
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
K°
6
OTHEP
0
1
1
0
50
50
50
LAND ACOUISTION
0
0
0
37.956
0/
37.956)
0
PF RMANENI TRANSFER
0
2.692
2.892
0
31.700
-----
34•700
31.700
-._.__
____________
TOTAL EYPCNDITUFEB •
___�-.__-_-.
27.970 •
-.--__-._-__
3.116 0(
..---...-___
21.521)•
--..-.--.---
171.626 •
--------____
11.319 •(
130.277)•
------ ---------_--
11.150
------------
NF.VCHUES OVER EXPENDITUF•(
............
---_-_._-_--
12.100)•
...�........
_._..__.--_.
3.102 •(
............
........_-_.
15.6011•(
............
85.001)•
............
------
•1.001 •(
............
127.785)•
............
11.000
GCC ACCOUNIANTO' COMPILATION REPORT.
0
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
12. DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORT - PUBLIC WORKS. W.S.
Water Department
operations in the Water Department went quite well this winter.
Only two service line leaks were noted. No major problems were encountered
with the water tower overflowing due to icing, and no significant
equipment failures were noted. We still appear to be having a significant
amount of problems with the Autocon Control System at the reservoir.
This system is completely outdated with very few parte available.
Each part that falls has to be almost totally rebuilt by hand. We
look forward to replacing this control system with the new water
system improvements.
In the area of water treatment, we are switching over to direct injection
of fluoride. We are doing this for economics and safety. As you
may know, fluoride is an extremely corrosive product. During the
mixing processes, there are some hazards; and in addition, some of
the fluoride settles out in the mixing tank which must be cleaned
periodically. Direct injection of fluoride can be accomplished with
the same equipment we have; and this change order should be complete
within the next few weeks. In addition, we are looking into the
possibility of direct injection of polyphosphates in a liquid form.
We have indications that this also will be lees expensive and result
in a more efficient operation. This, however, will require some
additional equipment which we will be discussing with the Council
at a later date.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operations at the Wastewater Treatment Plant have gone quite wall.
The injection of chlorine into the trickling filters appears to be
helping the odor problems at the plant. I have discussed at length
with Stove Sunt and other PSG personnel the need to keep researching
odor control measures at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. As time
goes on, there will be more and more pressure from the area immediately
north of the Treatment Plant to keep odors at a minimum. The change
over of the rear axle of the sludge truck is almost complete. Public
Works people are performing the axle swap. PSG's personnel are doing
the fonder modification. It appears now that overall costs will
be slightly leas than those projected earlier. Stave Sunt will be
available to answer any questions you may have at Monday evening's
meeting.
sower Collection System
Now that the new lift station is in operation at Chestnut Street
and River Street, a major portion of our sewage now goes directly
to the interceptor sewer. This has resulted in a significant drop
in flow to the West Bridge Park lift station. We are in the process
now of measuring and monitoring the amount of flow into this lift
station. As you may recall, our goal was to remove somewhere near
50 percent of the flow. We will report on the actual amount of reduction
-18-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
when all the results are in. In addition, we will be evaluating
the Front Street sever with closed circuit t.v. inspection. We have
never been able to view this sever previously due to the consistently
overloaded condition of the sever.
City staff is currently investigating a problem with the sever service
for one of Jerry Barthel's lots on West River Street. It appears
that a sever service established in 1968 for one of Mr. Barthel's
lots vas omitted with the Hillcrest Area improvement project in 1975.
Once all of our research is completed, this will be the topic of
a future agenda.
Streets and Alleys
With the mild winter this year, Public Works staff has been able
to catch up somewhat on routine tasks. As you may recall, much of
our Public Works time laet summer and fall was spent on the ballfield s,
and many routine tasks were given a lesser priority. Just about
all the equipment has been serviced and ready for the upcoming season.
In addition, Public Wo vke staff have completed come remodeling in
the basement of City Hall and the construction of a computer room
in the stairway area act City Hall. In addition, the lunchroom area
at the maintenance building has been expanded by lengthening the
area six feet.
About 90 percent of the crack sealing is done for this year, and
street sweeping will be started within the next few weeks. Jerry
Schmidt Is still off of work, as he is having hand surgery for a
non -occupational condition.
Park Department
Plane are now being made to again begin work at the ballfields.
We are in the process of putting together another list of volunteers
for the upcoming season. We expect to be seating all four ballfiolds
in May, with play to start in 1968. Much work will be performed
in the Fourth Street Park this year. As you may recall, we obtained
a now playground structure and will be relocating the ballfield.
In addition, we will be looking at a new parking arca as well as
additional plantings at the park.
We also Intend to finish Hillcrest Park this year. We have begun
regrading in the park and should complete it early this year.
East and West Bridge Park will be totally fenced along Highway 25
to protect the parks from the up and coming construction. We may
or may not negotiate with the bridge contractor for his use of the
East Bridge Park. At this time, MN/DOT's contract indicates the
contractor shall have no use whatsoever of the park other than those
easements granted for the actual construction.
_19_
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
our leaf composting facility out in the Hillcrest area is on the
verge of producing its first batch of compost. We expect to have
some in limited quantities available this year.
Administration and Engineering
We have completed the OSHA requirements at City Hall and are actively
abating those items noted in the other departments. The City did
receive fines in excess of $400 for inadequate belt guards, shaft
guards and stairway construction. We are currently making a decision
as whether to contest a portion of the fines and/or alleged violations.
we are currently working on a new sidewalk ordinance as requested
by our insurance company and to give some direction to future sidewalk
projects in Monticello.
Staff is currently gathering data and information in order to develop
a series of handouts for prospective developers in Monticello. The
handouts will be broadly ranged to include minor modifications to
existing structures, to home building, to complete development of
plats. In addition, we are discussing the development of a design
manual to aid developers in the city and to clarify the requirements.
A great deal of time is currently being spent working with the firm
of DMDI on the up and coming computer installation. Much of the
wiring for the requirements of the computer will be completed within
the next weak. The furniture as required has been ordered, and the
telephone lines necessary are expected to be installed before the
and of March. Delivery of our equipment will come in mid-April.
At that time, we will be working with DMDI to develop software specifications
in those areas such as Public works for which DMDI has no software
at this time.
Several projects will be kicking off again this year. we will begin
work on west County Road 39 this Spring. we expect to be meeting
with the contractor and the County within the next couple of weeks
to determine a project schedule. We are continuing efforts to obtain
the necessary rights-of-way for East County Road 39 and working out
the final design of the service road near the Rivarroad Plaza.
The Sanitary savor on Chelsea Road has boon completed, and the water
service construction will begin in April. Restoration and completion
of the work for the interceptor sever project will also begin sometime
in April. We will be holding a neighborhood meeting for those individuals
along Fourth Street in order to work out the final details of the
restoration along the railroad tracks.
This year we will be looking into the possibility of upgrading the
street system in Hillcrest and doing some repair work on the lover
and of Mississippi Drive. In addition, we will be preparing Specifications
for our replacement dump truck with plow for the street dopartmant.
All in all it looks like a vary busy year for all of the various
departments.
-20-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
12. DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORT - BUILDING INSPECTION. (G.A.)
Because of the mild winter, the building activity we have been experiencing
dollar -wise is approximately the same or slightly better than last
year, but the amount of permits has increased significantly, as we
have 15 new housing starts and one duplex as of this writing. with
favorable interest rates, we could assume that the total residential
single family structures to be constructed this year would exceed
the 50 total single family structures that were built last year.
I have seen a bitter and negative attitude on behalf of the housing
contractors with the significant increase over last year in the building
permit fees. Compounding that effect 1s the water and sewer hookup
fees which were also increased along with the building permit fees.
However, the overall general reaction since they have pa id a few
of these is that it is all being passed onto the homeowners, and
they begrudgingly pay the fees when they have to be paid.
BONING DEPARTMENT. (G.A.)
Zoning activity to date for the first three months of this year has
been at a relatively slow pace. The activity primarily has centered
around one or two activities within the Zoning Department, the rest
being passed on as information from previously tabled or continued
zoning issues. The seminar that was attended by two of the Planning
Commission members and myself (the information has been sent to you)
was received with a vary favorable response from those that attended
and was received with a vary positive response with the input which
they have instilled into the other Planning Commission members to
proceed on in future meetings.
ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT. (G.A.)
With the Council approving the May 18 Board of Review date, the direction
from the Wright County Assessor, Doug Gruber, to proceed) with the
books was given on January 19, 1987. Much time has been devoted
to just getting the now construction updated to be put into the field
books. Hopefully that will be completed by the end of thio week,
and we can get started on the seven field books which have to be
done by April 15. This begins the vary tedious, time consuming process
of putting values into the seven field books for the upcoming 1987
assessment. Hopefully, with a little luck, we'll be able to finish
the seven field books by the April 15, 1987, deadline.
CIVIL DEFENSE. (G.A.)
The Civil Defense Department has been very Quiet other than the first
three months of this year when we have had monthly civil defense
taste; and the civil defense towers which the City does own all have
boon up and working very well up to this point. An upcoming reminder
is that we will be experiencing a dry run and an actual run of a
nuclear disaster event. This will consist of two days in August
as planned for the City Hall building to be closed to operate this
.` type of event.
-21-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
12. DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. (O.K.)
The following information was presented as an agenda item to the
Industrial Development Committee at their last meeting.
Consideration for the City of Monticello to Proceed with Interest
as Possible Host Community for the Low -Level Radioactive Waste Facility.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With recommendations from the Industrial Development Committee, HRA,
Mayor Grimsmo, Administrator Eidem, and myself, I wrote a "letter
of inquiry- to the Minnesota Commissioner of the Midwest Compact
Commission in January. This letter simply signals a community's
potential interest in hosting a regional low-level radioactive waste
disposal facility and request additional information aimed at assisting
a city in deciding whether to pursue development of such a facility
in their area. The Midwest Commission benefits package is expected
to include:
-An estimated $2 million each year in direct and indirect revenue.
New Jobe: Employment of about 20 people with an annual payroll
of approximately $400,000. During construction,
additional Jobe will also be created.
Volume Tax: The Commission is supporting a special
tax on the volume of waste accepted at the facility;
this tax would raise about $800,000 per year for
the local community.
Other Income Source: The facility will probably
be operated by a private company which will pay
sales and business taxes. Payroll and tax revenue
will spread through the area and, as a secondary
impact, will add another estimated $800,000 to the
local economy.
-An opportunity to have some local control over the facility.
-The potential to attract a national technical center on low-level
waste to a host state.
Approximately 200 acres of land will be needed for the Midwest Commission -e
facility, which will be owned by the host state. Most of it will
be used for a buffer zone. An acceptable site must meet all of the
NRC performance standards which are designed to protect both public
health and the environment. Scientists will study the geology of
the site and many other factors. Test wells will be drilled and
installed, weather conditions studied, and a detailed environment
assessment prepared. It will be a long and thorough process. Rather
than immediately picking a site, the Commission hes decided first
to try to find a volunteer community with land that masts the stringent
It environmental siting requirements.
-22-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
II attended a State Legislative Advisory Committee Hearing on March 10,
1987. The Midwest Compact Commissioner, Thomas Kalitowski, reported
of the seven regional states: Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin
were identified as the four states for further consideration of the
regional facility. However, Minnesota's designation as the first
host state seems unlikely since both Michigan and Ohio generate greater
combined amounts of LLRW volume (cubic feet) and waste radioactive
(curies), two of the four criteria to be used in the host state selection
process. The LLRW facility would be set up on an optional 20 year
state rotating basis. Minnesota's option of volunteering to host
the first regional facility is being addressed. on Wednesday, April 1.
1987, the MINN DEED is sponsoring a workshop on the volunteer process
and on the pro's and con's of the LLRW facility. Also. Minnesota has
the option to develop a disposal facility as a "Go -It -Alone" state;
however, the Legislative Advisory Committee feels the economic consequences
would be adverse.
After the workshop, interested communities would issue press releases,
hold public information meetings with the aid of state and/or commission
staff/officials. Thereafter, a Resolution of Interest will be necessary
from the responsible government body of the local political subdivision
within, where the proposed site would be located. The resolution
would not, at this point, be binding in any way. To date, Minnesota
has received 13 "letters of inquiry" from cities and one from a county.
No resolutions have boon received.
I would appreciate the City Council's reaction as to whether the
City of Monticello should proceed with interest or to atop the procedure
of interest as possible host community for the LLRW facility.
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To proceed with interest and attend the workshop on April 1,
1987.
2. To stop the process of interest as potential host community of
the LLRW facility.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
In the interest of economics, staff recommends to proceed with interest
as no binding commitment is made. Job creation and diract/indirect
revenues aro benefits to the host community; however, environmental
protection, public health and safety are concerns to be addressed.
STAR CITY QU "TERLY MEETING. (O.K.)
On Wednesday. February 11, 1987, 1 attended the Star City Quarterly Meeting
in St. Paul. The agenda included Eric Solberg, CEO, NW Bell Minnesota;
David Spoor, Commissioner, Minnesota Trade and Economic Development;
and James Harvey, Executive Director, National Commission on Jobs
and Small Business. Commissionor Bpeer presented Star City cortlficatoe
to all 53 star cities. Bob Stern, retired State Star City Coordinator.
was recognized.
-23-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
MONTICELLO-BIG LAKE JOINT AIRPORT COMMISSION. (O.K.)
r
The first meeting was held Wednesday. February 11, 1987, at the Monticello
City Hall. The purpose was an organizational meeting. Bill King
was elected Chairperson, with Tom Eidem as Assistant. Directors
are Mr. King, Mr. Eidem, Mr. Gene Earney, and Ms. 011ie Koropchak.
The directors adopted the Joint Airport Bylaws.
DATA CARD COPORATION. (O.K.)
On Thursday, February 12, 1987, Mr. Dean Whaley, Vice President of
Manufacturing; Mr. Juel Peterson, Production Manager; and Ms. Terry
Beattie, Manufacturing Planning Manager, for Data Card Corporation,
along with Mr. Jim Lushine, Minnesota Department of Economic Development,
visited Monticello. Their purpose was to view the IRI Complex with
the intent of a triple net lease agreement.
Data Card is a world leader in the payment systems marketplace serving
custumers with a broad range of high-quality products and services.
The company is the leading manufacturer of computer -controlled embossing
and encoding systema, the largest printer and manufacturer of plastic
credit, bank, cash and promotional cards, and operates the world's
largest service bureau for customers who do not process cards in-house.
The company also produces a full line of credit card imprinters and
a family of electronic point-of-sale terminals, and offers credit
card registration services worldwide.
Data Card employe more than 1,900 people in its operations throughout
the world. Revenues increased 40% to 5153,554,000 and not income
increased 31• to $10,581,000 in fiscal 1986.
After viewing the IKI Complex, we made an extensive tour of Monticello.
To consider an option to lease the Ik1 Complex, first, is to find
a private investor; however, my perception was the building didn't
meat their needs or image. Second option is build to lease. At
this time, I've contacted Veit Construction, Winkelman Construction,
Construction Five, and Adophson 6 Peterson. Land options include
parcels in Oakwood Industrial Park and Construction Five Addition.
Data Card's expansion would create 35 jobs, with a proposed 30,000 sq ft
concrete facility of which 4,000 eq ft would accommodate office/lunch
area. The company maintains a vary clean image. They are considering
other locations: Elk River, Litchfield, Delano, and Glencoe. On
February 24 I visited their Minnetonka office and mailed a proposal
on March 13, 1987. Plane are for portions of the IDC and myself
to visit the Minnetonka operation on April 10. Their timetable is
a location decision by the and of May.
-24-
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
NAWCO MINNESOTA, INC. (O.K.)
NAWCO Minnesota, Inc. is the incorporated Minnesota name for the
Norwegian holding company, Det Scandinaviske Vinduscompaniet, A/S.
Numerous trips have been made by Erik Fjerdingstad and Roald Starheim.
The prime reason for Erik and his wife, Aase-Elin's March visit was
to find housing for their planned move to Monticello in early July.
On March 30, 1987, Mr. Fjerdingstad will telephone with the final
financial arrangements for the $3.2 million dollar project. Plans
are for the construction of a 25,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility
plus an attached 3,400 sq. ft. office, showcase, conference room
facility on Lot 12, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. Lot 11, Block 2.
Oakwood Industrial Park will be purchased at the same time for future
expansion. The creation of a Tax Increment District for the project
is in it's preliminary stages. Mr. Fjerdingstad and Mr. Starheim
will return the week of April 7th to interview contractors/builders.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. (O.K.)
Mr. Jack Peach of Fulfillment Systems, Inc., is the most recent new
member on the IDC. Joel Winkelman of James 6 Gruber, CPA., has
represented the Chamber of Commerce on the committee for the past
year.
Plans are underway for the 1987 Business and Industrial Development
Banquet. The annual fund raiser will be held Monday. May 18, 1987,
6:30PM at the Monte Club. Featured guest speaker, Win Borden,
President of the Minnesota Association of Commerce 8 Industry.
You received an announcement of the organizational/informational
meeting for the Monticello Promotional Information Packet. This
has been a goal of the IDC. Your input is always welcomed.
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL TRAINING. (O.K.)
I completed the four week National Development Council Training
in January. The first week, Economic Development Financing; the
second week, Business Credit Analysis; the third week, Real Estate
Financing; and the fourth week, Advanced Deal Structuring. Testing
was required after each week in order to proceed to the next
session. Notice of certification as an Economic Development
Finance Professional will be announced in June. The Downtown
Revitalization Training scheduled for March 16-18 was cancelled
due to lack of interest. The City will receive a refund of
prepayment from Minn DEED. The Revolving Loan Workshnp will be
held April 14 and June 2, 1987.
1987 BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION SURVEY. (O.K.)
Enclosed is a portion of the 1987 Business Retention and Expansion
Survey; the remaining portion hasn't been completely tabulated and
typed.
-25-
CI
Council Agenda - 3/23/87
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. (O.K.)
The Monticello Chamber of Commerce has become an active organization
within our community in the past few years. Serving as Executive
Secretary for the Chamber meetings and Chamber Board of Director's
meetings, along with promoting Monticello through the numerous
telephone and mail contacts, requesting information about our
city and area, keeps me hopping. Also, I serve on their Community
Improvements Committee and their Downtown Christmas Lights/Decoration
Committee. At this time, the Chamber is in the midst of their
membership drive.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. (O.K.)
The HRA has been relatively quiet, except for Tax Increment District
No. 5. The HRA had did some preliminary discussion with Metcalf/
Larson for a second elderly housing project at the site of the
old Monticello Ford area; however, at this time, the project is at
a stand still.
-26-
1987 BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION SURVEY
Industrial companies who completed the survey:
Northern States Power Company Fingerhut Corporation
Wrightco Products, Inc. WebAmerica
Fulfillment Systems, Inc. Automatic Garage Door
Bondhus Corporation Clow Stamping
Electro Industries Larson Manufacturing
Mega Products Jones Manufacturing
Decorative Services Rainbow Enterprises
Industrial companies not included in the survey:
SMA Elevator
Of the 14 compaines surveyed: nine - manufacturing
two - retail
three - service
Principal Market Area: 7.925 City
12.145 Trade area(more than city but less than state)
35.425 State (MN)
41.645 National
2.855 International
Average employment last year:
Average employment - 808 Largest NSP - 240
Smallest Rainbow Enterprises - 5
Mean - 57.7
Median - 24.5
Estimated full-time - 755
Estimated part-time - 51
Permanent jobs - 733
Seasonal jobs - 30
Number of (full-time equivalent) employees in the following categories
Professional - 101-4 largest 89 NSP
Managerial - 51-11
Sales - 35-6
Clerical - 99-12 largest 50 FSI
Services - 20-1
Agriculture - 5-1
Machina operatives - 168-9 largest 72 Wrightco
Precision prod. - 13-2
Technical - 135-4 largest 73 NSP
Handler/laborer - 139-10 largest 71 FSI
Average wages for following categories (does not include fringe benefits).
No answer from NSP.Fingerhut, and Wrightco.
$/vr in DOD's
i/vr in 100's
$/hr
Professional - 3 Mean
$42.3 Median
340.0
$19.23
Managerial - 8
134.7
$33.0
$15.86
Sales - 5
{31.7
{30.0
f14.42
Clerical - 8
$13.5
$12.5
f 6.00
Machine operative - 7
$15.9
$15.0
f 7.28
Precision prod. - 1
$24.0
624.0
$11.53
Technical - 1
$26.0
$26.0
$12.50
Handler/laborer - 8
$13.4
$13.0
$ 6.25
k—
t
`1
DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORT
Northwest Branch YMCA
Detached Work Program C1iSnt Data
1986 Summary
• Five Detached Workers
• Family Counselor
• Chemical Awareness Counselor
Detached Work: Methods of Program Delivery _
• one-to-one counseling * restitution programs
• Alateen groups * Menogyn Camping experiences
• self-esteem groups * therapeutic recreational activities
• sexuality groups * vocational assistance
• chemical awareness groups * crisis intervention
• family counseling * referrals to appropriate sources
• NYPUM minibike program • advocacy
Number of Clients Served
Male 269 Female 328 TOTAL 597
Ethnic Background
Black 14 White 550 Asian 14 Native American 17 Chicano 2 Other 1
Referral Sources
Police 69 Court Services 74 School 307 Welfare 3.1 Family 45
Self 40 Peers 31 Other 19
Runaway
Truancy
Inappropriate School Behavior
Drug Abuse
Property Crimes
Violent Crimes
Unmanageable Home Behavior
Family Problems
Self -Esteem
Sexual Abuse
Physical Abuse/Neglect
Emotional Abuse/Neglect
Eating Disorders
Pregnancy
vocational. Assistance
Sexuality Concerns
Survival Needs
Other Sources
Multiple Problems Documented
254 Assessment
597 Counseling
851 Total
REASONS REFERRED WORKER IDENTIFIED PROBLEM(S)
12
11
33
41
59
61
65
103
60
20
60
3
52
49
247
294
48
148
22
53
5
22
6
26
1
9
11
24
17
29
26
35
4
18
18
32
14.73 Average Age of Client
201 Low Income Families
241 Slagle Parent Families
NORTHWEST BRANCH YMCA OF METROPOLITAN MINNEAPOLIS
FAl1ILY COUNSELING PROGRAM
1986 Summary _
The Northwest YMCA Family Counseling Program serviced families in
1986. Most were direct referrals from the Detached Work Program.
Many families were referred out -- due to lack of time available to:
1. Family and Children's Service (Osseo and Downtown)
2. Northwest Mental Health
3. The House
4. Counseling Clinic
5. The Bridge
6. Therapists in private practice (if people had insurance)
133 of the families served:
67 were single parent. headed by women
9 were single parent. headed by men
56 were dealing with chemical dependency
37 were dealing with suicide attempts
26 were dealing with unplanned pregancy
32 were dealing with runaway children
75 were dealing with school behavior problems
43 were dealing with unemployment
57 were dealing with domestic abuse
97 were dealing with child abuse or neglect
The program operates on a sliding fee scale.
Northwest Area YMCA
Detached Work Staff
7601 42nd Ave. N., Ilew Hope. MN 55427
Mike Malstad...............Detached Worker
Cheryl Lombardi ............ Detached Worker
Sue Bchou.................. Detached Worker
Lorraine Coan..............Detached Worker
Carl Parker .............. .Detached Worker
June Audette.............. Family Counselor
Nita Fronk.... Chemical Awareness Counselor
Dana Sorenson .......... Associate Executive
595-4800
C
GENERAL FUND -- MARCH
AMOUNT
CHECK NO
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg, fees
97.00
23870
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
58.00
23871
Melchert/Block - Eng. fees -for Chelsea Road extension
620.20
23872
Continental Safety Equip. - 2 breathing apparatus - Fire Dept.
2,208.90
23873
Hilltop Claims 6 Construction - Install shelves at Library
146.00
23874
Feedrite Controls - Poly, chlorine, flouride, etc.
1,385.95
23875
Tom ESdem - Misc. expenses
15.38
23876
Dahlgren, Shardlow, etc. - Planning services
844.16
23877
OSM - Eng. fees
5,192.58
23878
Government Training Services - Reg. fees for Seminar
126.00
23879
Adventure Publications - MN. Tree handbook
71.99
23880
Century Labs. - Cleaner and soap
164.15
23881
Gary Anderson - Mileage
45.90
23882
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D.
24,022.74
23883
MN. Pollution Control Agency - Reg. fee for W. Mack seminar
50.00
23884
State of MN. - Procurement Adm. - Membership fee
225.00
23885
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
123.04
23886
I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded.
534.34
23887
Jerry Hermes - Library janitorial
216.67
23888
David Stromberg - Animal control expense
287.50
23889
Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense
275.00
23890
Petty Cash - Reimburse petty cash fund
30.43
23891
Anne Carroll - Computer consulting fees
2,440.00
23892
Citizens State Bank of Big Lake - Tax Inc. note - P&I
5,944.65
23893
James Preusse - Cleaning city hall and fire hall
458.33
23894
YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
583.33
23895
Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
23896
Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
23897
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
23898
Mr. William Fair - Council salary
125.00
23899
Mr. Warren Smith - Council salary
123.19
23900
Mr. James Ridgeway - Plan. Comm. salary
49.27
23901
Mr. Richard Carlson - Planning Comm. salary
49.27
23902
Mr. Dick Martie - Planning Comm. salary
49.27
23903
Ms. Barbara Koropchak - Planning Comm. salary
49.27
23904
Corrow Sanitation - Monthly contract
7,587.90
23905
PERA - Pere W/H
1.354.80
23906
Wright County State Bank - FWT W/H
4,725.08
23907
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT
2,040.00
23908
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
170.00
23909
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
23910
Dept. of Nat. Rae. - Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
23911
Monticello Sen. Citizen's Center - Reimb. for Inf. Center sal.
464.75
23912
L 4 G Rehbein - Payment YI - Boyle project
107,997.93
23913
Olson 4 Sons Electric - Professional services
300.40
23914
Don Rush - Painting light poles
250.00
23915
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees
101.00
23916
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees
8.00
23917
Marvin Woolhouse - Repair roof on Fire Hall 6 City Hall
570.00
23918
North Contra] Public Service - Utilities
1,248.56
23919
Northern States Power - Utilities
6,150.77
23920
Amoco Oil - Fire Dept. gas
34.93
23921
Professional Services Group - Monthly contract - WWTP
22,083.35
23922
Unocal - Gas - Walt's van
63.92
23923
Simonson Lumbar - Supplies for computer room
788.23
23924
General Ind. Supply - Tap 6 die set, sockets - Mtce. Bldg.
228.80
23925
Neotronics - Aspirator, oxygen sensor, etc. - Mtce. Bldg.
175.98
23926
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Reed's Sales b Service - Blades and rings - St. Dept.
161.29
23927
Suburban Gas - Gas
68.25
23928
McDowall Co. - Fire Hall repairs
109.10
23929
National Bushing - Air control units 6 tire hdwe.
124.40
23930
National Chemsearch - Weed killer
830.66
23931
Special Service Office - Water Eng. 6 Mgmt. Sub.
42.50
23932
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Cords, etc.
37.12
23933
Big Lake Equip. - Switch
12.69
23934
Flicker's T. V. - Intercom for Mtce. Bldg.
99.95
23935
Moon Motors - Parts - Parks equip.
82.66
23936
Kiplinger Washington Letter - Sub. renewal
48.00
23937
Servi Star Hardware - Paint, varnish, filters, garbage can
109.89
23938
Harry's Auto Supply - Heater, gauge, spark plugs, etc.
173.69
23939
Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies
127.36
23940
Dual Mfg. ro. - Seal kit - Mtce. Bldg.
26.94
23941
Bowman Barnes - Supplies - Mtce, bldg.
29.72
23942
Snap on Tools - Pliers, screwdriver, clamps, vise grip - Mtce.
178.98
23943
Treasurer, MCFOA - Membership fee for T. Eidem
15.00
23944
AT 6 T Systems - Fire phone charges
3.96
23945
Snyder Drug - Film
17.49
23946
National Life Ins. - Ina. premium for T. Eidem
100.00
23947
Marco Business Products - Office supplies
55.00
23948
Albany Carbide - Crack sealer - St. Dept.
896.04
23949
Richard Carlson - Mileage for seminar
27.20
23950
Sentry Systeme - Telephone lease for Water Dept.
90.00
23951
Wright County Treasurer - Sheriff's contract - March
10,645.21
23952
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
122.09
23953
Local 949 - Union dues
95.00
23954
Holmes 6 Graven - Professional services - Const. 5
426.30
23955
Maus Foods - Supplies
85.28
23956
Gould Bros. - Fire Dept. repairs
66.50
23957
Monticello Agency - Renewal bond for T. Eidem
50.00
23958
American National Bank - Imp. bonds of 1960 - Interest
2,200.00
23959
The J. G. Press - Sub. to Bio Cycle - Public Wks. Dept.
47.70
23960
Barco Products - Blades - snow plow - crack filler
342.93
23961
Water Products - Meters and nuts
433.40
23962
Int. Institute of Hun. Clerks - Dues for T. Eidem
35.00
23963
Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental
128.00
23964
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
97.00
23965
Larsen Carpet 6 Furniture - Remnant - Mtce. Bldg.
15.00
23966
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control contract
100.00
23967
Merlin Wilbur - 1987 Membership dues for Bldg. Official
15.00
23968
Tom Eidem - Car allowance for March
300.00
23969
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
123.04
23970
I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded.
534.34
23971
PERA - Employee ins. premium
27.00
23972
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll dad.
204.00
23973
Dahlgren, Shardlow, etc. - Planning serv. - Annexation
3,902.23
23974
O'Connor 6 Hannan - Airport Comm. services
1,605.77
23975
Data Processing Dept. -Tax roll computer print-out
31.50
23976
MN. Pollution Control Agency - Annual permit fee
140.00
23977
Braun Eng. - Testing - Boyle project
351.50
23978
Smith, Pringle, etc. - Legal - Feb.
2,764.00
23979
Maus Tire Service - Repairs
70.00
23980
Perry Kostal - Old Fire Hell "For Sale" sign
150.00
23981
Taylor Land Surveyors - Review legal dee. in Block 65
35.00
23982
Heyer-Rohlin - 2 sets of prints
10.25
23983
-2-
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
I Chapin Publishing Co. - Bid adv.
165.
36
23984
Bridgewater Telephone - Phone charges
842.
95
23985
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library
216.
67
23986
David Stromberg - Animal control contract
287.
50
23987
Wright County State Bank - FWT
4,745.
04
23988
PERA - Pera W/H
1,362.
43
23989
Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries
1,449.42
23990
Banker's Life - Group Ins.
4,008.
72
23991
United Parcel Service - Return of package for J. Simola
11.
03
23992
State Treasurer - Cabinets and shelves -
85.
50
23993
Viking Safety Products - Storage cabinet - Sen. Citizen's
320.
60
23994
Albinson, Inc. - Magnetic locater - Public Wks. Dept.
615.
00
23995
General Ind. Supply - Gloves - Public Wks. Dept.
37.
80
23996
011ie Koropchak - Mileage expense
20.
00
23997
State Chemical Mfg. - Weed killer
244.
08
23998
Earl Andersen - Playground equip. 6 signs - 4th St. park
5,553.
19
23999
Scott Douglas -Mileage b exp. for Fire Dept. seminar
120.
00
24000
Share Corp. - Cold, galvanizing - Streets
110.
48
24001
Dept, of Prof. Dev. - Reg, fee for seminar for K. Doty
195.
00
24002
Turnqufst Paper Co. - Paper towels and toilet tissue
45.
87
24003
Water Eng. 6 Management - Sub.
42.
50
24004
Davis Electronic Service - Pager repairs - Fire Dept.
159.
06
24005
Golden Valley Furniture - Desk for Fire Dept.
25.
00
24006
Arve Grimsmo - Mileage expense - League meeting
31.
50
24007
Marlene Hellman - Mileage expense
12.
50
24008
MN. Pollution Control Agency - Permit app. fee - 86-7 Projec
80.
00
24009
L Gary Anderson - Mileage expense
49.45
24010
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage 6 reimb. expense
127.
35
24011
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees
173.
00
24012
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees
18.
00
24013
Ag -Chem Equipment - Sludge truck axle part 6 misc. parte
1,020.
79
24014
Mobil 011 - Gas Fire Dept.
40.
86
24015
Broadway Rental - Rental of drill press - Mtce. Bldg.
55.
00
24016
Fire Instructor's Assn. - Manuals for Fire Dept.
221.
17
24017
Foster Franzen Agency - Insurance premium
108.
00
24018
MN. Dept. of Health - Permit appl.fee - 86-7 Project
150.
00
24019
OSM - Eng. fees
1,252.
58
24020
Payroll for Feb.
24,294.
90
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR MARCH
$280.335.
14
C
—3-
r
LIQUOR FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK
MARCH LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS
N0.
NO.
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for Jan.
5,673.35
12936
St. Cloud Refrigeration - Repairs at store
180.69
12937
Glass Hut - Adjust door
43.00
12938
Ed Phillips d Sons - Liquor
1.966.62
12939
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Feb.
198.00
12940
Wright County State Bank - FWT
595.66
12941
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
170.00
12942
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
3.890.30
12943
Monticello J. C.'s - Adv.
30.00
12944
PERA - Para W/H
185.56
12945
Twin City Wine - Liquor
1,089.70
12946
VOID
-0-
12947
VOID
-0-
12948
Ed Phillips 4 Sons - Liquor
2.128.90
12949
Quality Wine - Liquor
582.16
12950
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
386.02
12951
Eagle Wine - Liquor
617.19
12952
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
5.402.61
12953
Johnson Bro. Liquor - Liquor
3,371.79
12954
Cruys. Johnson - Computer services for Jan. b Feb.
220.00
12955
Day Dist. Co. - Beer
387.00
12956
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse.
132.01
12957
Monticello Times - Adv.
127.60
12958
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
71.06
12959
Joe Hartman - Travel expense
84.20
12960
Coast to Coast. - Store expense
13.39
12961
Monticello Office Products - Store supplies
2.18
12962
Stomquist Diet. Co. - Misc. mdse.
50.30
12963
Century Laboratories - Class cleaner
55.33
12964
Viking Coca Cole - Misc. mdse.
198.19
12965
Jude Candy Tobacco Co. - Misc. mdsa.
468.89
12966
Maus Foods - Store expense
16.80
12967
Grosel.ain Beverage Co. - Beer
8,475.50
12968
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
5.928.10
12969
Bernick's Pepsi - Misc. mdse.
233.90
12970
Dick Beverage - Beer
2,037.70
12971
Kolles Sanitation - Contract services for garbage
133.50
12972
Dahlheimor Diet. Co. - Beer
14,030.10
12973
North Central Public Service - Utilities
140.49
12974
Northern States Power - Utilities
499.82
12975
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
170.00
12976
Wright County State Bank - FWT
624.26
12977
Cloudy Town Diet. Co. - Store supplies
12.00
12978
MN. Bar Supply - Store supplies
171.73
12979
Service Sales Corp. - Paper Supplies
29.40
12980
Granite City Cash Register Co. - Stora expense
182.30
12981
Liefert Trucking - Freight
324.83
12982
PERA - Para W/H
189.96
12983
Banker's Life - Croup ins.
321.94
12984
Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,144.69
12985
Quality Wine - Liquor
1,228.76
12986
LIQUOR FUND
Ed Phillipa b Sons - Liquor
Johnson Bro. Liquor - Liquor
VOID
VOID
National Child Safety Council - Adv.
Foster Franzen Agency - Insurance premium
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - Feb.
Payroll for Feb.
TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - MARCH
AMOUNT CHECK
NO.
2.301.22
12987
1.188.52
12988
-0-
12989
-0-
12990
62.00
12991
8.075.00
12992
5.400.93
12993
3.601.19
$85,846.54
J
IJ
B
CITY OF H.YMCELLO
. .
'
Ila,thly
Dullding DepprLmuit R.port
+
lln,th of Pen�,..e79-fij
'
PQUUT3 mid USES
H—u, LeeL Teer '11Aa
Iear I
PODUTS ISSUED
lli,th Jenuerr
IIn,Lh February
L -L Year To Dote To Date i
IIFSI DF21 T1 AL
Ilumbor
11
5
B 12
16
Volustion
1 522,100.00
f 237,100.00
1 247,530.00 f 754,460.00 S
759,200.00
Fees
3,260.31
3,061.30
1,364.65 4,090.95
6,329.61
Surchsrgee
261.04
lie ss
121.70 377.15
379.59
ou;PORCIAL
.
dumber
3
2
1 t, 2
5
Velustion
44,430.00
202,400.00
20,000.00 60,000.00 ..
246,830.00
Foos
417.80
,1,109.60
140.50. 370.50
1,527.40
Surcharges
22.20'
101.20„
10.00 30.00
123.40
1N WS1TU AL
.
Number
V.1. a tion
1
Fees '
Surchnrges
.
,
PWl0l21a
Number
9
5
.. 4 6
14
Fesa
217,00
123.00
112.00 257.00
34000
3urchnrgee
4.50
2.50
2.00 4.00
7,.00
0111F]L9
,
Number '
Val—Lim,
Feee
L3-0—gee
TOTAL NO. PF1UUTSJ
23
12
'13 22
35
TOTAL VAI11ATION
566,53D.00
439,500.00
263,530.00 014.460.00
1.006.030.Q3[_
TOTAL Ff.P9
3,903.'1
4,293.90
1,617.35 4.7)4.45
.,197.01
7DTAL 6UnCIUnG1:D
207.74
227.25
1)3.70 411.15
509.99
tURRFlrr nxrni
---" —
rFr•
llumber
to Date
I'DUUT NAIVII6
Ihwber
_ 142UUT I,ql"
7l CIAdIG Voluetlon 7h10 srer
Leal year
Single Family
4
f 2.902.00 1
111.20 1 222.400.00 13
5 '
Dupl—
' 0
1
Ih,l A. 1-1 emlJy
.O
t
Coeeerclel
0
0
IllduaLrl sl
0
0
Iles. Fnreges
0
0
S1Fj,s
0
0
P„bllc aelldinge
0
0.
ALTF11ATIVI C11 IUTA18
Dwe1I Inge
1
159.30
7.35 '14,700. o01 3
Q
co—erctel
2
1,109.60
101 20 202,400. DO S
j
lndu strl el
0
0
rw+ulu+a
All types
5
123.00
2.50 14
e
aCCC5LOR1 6TAIICI URLI
Ovleale9 Poole
1 .. O
0
Deeke
0
1 1
0
1CI1POhAR1 VERPUT
1 0
0
OLNOLIVION
�'••'
I , •,
TMIA
12
4,283.90
�
222.25 428,500:00 35
1
22
;
Abk OR
*'ID
'EAM.IT DESCR SPT ION
IUMBE R
R7-10 Rowe i Wraps
07-102107Rospltal Reendel
97-1072 store R0oo601
s7-1021 Xowe 6 Garage
87-1024 XpiUe i Garage
d7-1025 Xpllae Pas lded
87-1025 Rouse t Garage
PLAN RCVICN
57-:020 Hou•• i Wroge
87-1023 New• i Garage
87-1026 Roue• A Garap•
07-1026 roue• 6 Cara0e
t DIUDUAL PUNT ACTIVITY REPORT
. MONTH OF rr8R0ARY , 1987
P NAME/ LOCATION VALUATION
or BIE Builders, 1=./2721 Oakviw Ln. 8 $7,300.00
AC MO. Co Jty Hospital/1013 Hart Blvd. 187.000.00
AC
Rel Owl Stores, Ino./201 B. 7th St.
15,{00.00
Br
Cyr Cont./2742 Oakv I0v'Ln.
51.000.00
or
Cyr Cont. Ltd/2762 Oakviev Ln.
$4,100.00
Ar
Nldk i Lt- Nipper/400 W. 4th St.
14,700.00
87'
Ronald L Sherri HockanCRse1100
60.000.00
113 Mlaaiseippi Drlve
TOTALS
5439.500.00
Sr Sin Butldars,ine./2721 Oakviev Ln. 9 290.77
Sr Cyr CC.t..Ltd/7742 Oakvlw In. 277.35
8r Cyr Const-Ltd/2762 Oakviw Ln. 281.41
or Ronald i Sherri HackensuellON •
113 MlSetestpp OrivA 299.67
TOTAL PLAN Pm rN 5 1.143.20
Total. arvmv 8 4,516.15
cart
PERMIT SURCHARGE) PLUMB ING ISURCHARGr
5 447.15 5 29.65 9 23.00 5 .50
944.00 93.50 31.00 .50
165.60 7.70
{19.00 •25.50 23.00 .50
432.95 27.05 23.00 .50
159.30 7.35
459.50 30.00 23.00 .50
93,,027. 0 T2t9.75 8123.00 52.50